What If-Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

Discussions on the Winter War and Continuation War, the wars between Finland and the USSR.
Hosted by Juha Tompuri
Post Reply
User avatar
CanKiwi2
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 26 Nov 2010, 16:48
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: What If-Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

#661

Post by CanKiwi2 » 13 Jul 2014, 13:54

British Tanks through the 1920's and 1930's

At a time when most soldiers regarded the tank as a specialized infantry-support weapon for crossing trenches, a significant number of officers in the British Army's Royal Tank Corps had gone on to envision a much broader role for mechanized units. In May 1918, Colonel J.F.C. Fuller, the acknowledged father of tank doctrine, had used the example of German infiltration tactics to refine what he called "Plan 1919". This was an elaborate concept for a large-scale armoured offensive by the British Army in 1919.

Image
Colonel J.F.C. Fuller, the acknowledged father of tank doctrine

The British Army's interest in tanks post-WWI was for fast, lightly armoured, mobile vehicles - the light and medium (or "cruiser") tanks - tasked with reconnaissance and constabulary-type colonial roles, with cheapness the major design factor. Through the 1920's, this resulted in a line of light tanks being built for the British Army by Vickers-Armstrong, with the first being the Vickers Light Tank Mark I.

In 1920 the British Army planned to acquire a Light Infantry Tank. Colonel Johnson of the Tank Design Department derived a design such a type from the Medium Mark D. In competition, Vickers built the Vickers Light Tank but the project was abandoned in 1922 in favour of a generally more conventional design: the Vickers Light Tank Mark I, that was renamed the Vickers Medium Tank Mark I in 1924. The first prototypes were sent to Bovington for trial in 1923. The Medium Mark I replaced some of the Mark V heavy tanks; and some 200 served in the Royal Tank Regiments, being phased out only in 1938. The Medium Mark I was the first tank to see "mass" production following WW1 and represented most of the world's tank production during the 1920's.

The Vickers Medium Mark I

After the First World War, Britain disbanded most of its tank units leaving only five tank battalions equipped with the Mark V and the Medium Mark C. At first a large budget was made available for tank design but this was all spent on the failed development of the Medium Mark D. In 1920 the Infantry had plans to acquire a Light Infantry Tank. Colonel Johnson of the Tank Design Department derived such a type from the Medium Mark D. In competition Vickers built the Vickers Light Tank. Vickers were not conspicuously interested in tanks – they had made none during the Great War and no big orders were expected. Nevertheless, the post-war arms market being somewhat limited, they set up a small staff and determined to see what they could do.

Image
Vickers Medium Mark I A

The design office was set up in Sheffield, where the team produced plans for the tank starting from scratch. Due in large part to the first post-war economic recession, their design reflected a stringent frugality, although the Vickers design was still reminiscent of the Great War types. It had a high, lozenge-shaped, track frame with side doors but it also showed some improvements. There was a fully revolving turret and the suspension was sprung by vertical helical springs, while the Medium Mark C still had a fixed turret and was unsprung. The Vickers Light Tank was much smaller than the Medium C at just seven feet high and weighing only 8.5 short tons. It was driven by a separately compartmented 86 hp engine through an advanced hydraulic Williams-Jenney transmission, allowing infinitely variable turn cycles.

Image
Vickers Medium Mark I

When the government design bureau, the Tank Design Department, was closed in 1923 any direct official involvement in tank development was terminated. However, Vickers-Armstrong company went ahead and built two prototypes in 1921. The first prototype was a "Female" version with three Hotchkiss machine guns; the second prototype was a "Male" which had a 3-pounder gun in place of one of the machine guns and also a machine gun for anti-aircraft use. It looked far closer to a modern tank than its predecessors with the turret, the front of the fighting compartment and the hull front plate all strongly rounded. The advanced transmission proved to be utterly unreliable however and the project was abandoned in 1922 in favour of a generally more conventional design, the Vickers Light Tank Mark I. This would be renamed the Vickers Medium Tank Mark I in 1924. The first prototypes were sent to Bovington for trial in 1923. The Vickers designation was A2E1.

Despite being in general more conventional, in one aspect the Medium Mark I looked rather modern: instead of a high track run it possessed a low and flat suspension system with five bogies, each having a pair of small double wheels. The axles of these were too weakly constructed; as Major-General N.W. Duncan put it in his Medium Marks I-III: "(...) a perpetual nuisance. The axles were continually breaking and the path of the Mark I tanks was littered with discarded wheels". This was cured by switching to a "box bogie" in 1931. To ease repairs the suspension was not protected by an armoured covering. There were two vertical helical springs of unequal length in each of the five bogie casings attached to the hull. In front and behind the normal ten road wheel pairs, there was a tension wheel pair. Ground pressure was very high, even though at 11.7 long tons the vehicle was not very heavy for its size.

The engine was an air-cooled 90 hp Armstrong Siddeley engine derived from an aircraft type. Surprisingly the engine and transmission was distributed throughout the hull - with the engine to the left of the driver, the gearbox underneath the commander and final drive at the rear, which Duncan describes as "an unbelievable retrograde step in view of war-time experience". The Medium Mark B and the Mark VIII had introduced compartmentalisation to reduce the debilitating effects of engine noise and fumes on the crew. However with the Medium Mark I considerations of ease of maintenance took precedence.

Image
Vickers Medium Mark I

The engine drove, via a multiple dry-plate clutch, a four-speed gearbox. It had no synchromesh and switching between gears without excessive noise was a challenge to the driver. A propeller shaft connected the gearbox to a bevel box at the end of the tank which divided the power to a separate epicyclic gear for each track. These gears automatically provided extra emergency torsion to the normal first and second gear if the vehicle suddenly slowed down due to an obstacle or soft ground. The petrol tanks were at the very rear of the hull, so the fuel lines had to run along the whole length of the vehicle, pumping fuel to a secondary tank that fed the engine by gravity. The engine was lubricated and partially cooled by oil; leakage was common and the original four-gallon reservoir had to be replaced by a 13.5 one. The tank could be electrically started, but only if the motor was already warm, so the first start had to be done by hand from the inside of the vehicle. Maximum speed was about 15 mph and the range about 120 miles (although Captain Liddell Hart has written that it could actually travel at nearer to 30mph).

There was a cylindrical bevelled turret on top of the hull that carried a "Quick Firing" (shell and cartridge in one complete round) three-pounder gun (47 mm calibre) and four ball mountings for Hotchkiss machine guns. A novel, unique feature was a three-man turret. This meant that commander was not distracted with performing either the loader's or gunner's tasks and could fully concentrate on maintaining situational awareness. In this respect the design of the Medium Mk I was important since it established a turret layout that encouraged teamwork by improvements in manual efficiency as well as enhancing morale in action. This gave a huge potential combat advantage, but went largely unnoticed at the time. Other manufacturer's tanks did not have this capability until the German Panzer III was developed in 1937.

Image
Vickers Medium Mark I tanks on the move in England in the 1930s

The practical importance of this feature is signified by the fact that later in World War II, most of both sides tanks' designs either quickly switched to the three-man turret, or were abandoned as obsolete. There was no co-axial machine gun. There was only room to operate one machine gun from the turret; normally one gun was switched between the respective mountings as the guns were removable. The turret machine gunner doubled as main gun loader. In each side of the hull was a Vickers machine gun. There was one gunner to operate these, he also functioned as the mechanic.

The shape of the Mark I Medium hull was very distinctive. The back was a simple armoured box; the front plate was high and perfectly vertical. Between them, from the armoured hood of the driver at the right of the vehicle six armour plates fanned out to the left, making for a complex hull geometry on that side. All in all the Vickers Medium Mk I tank gave an impression of being ungainly and squat. The crew of five was only poorly protected by 6.25 mm plating, rivetted to the chassis, barely enough to counter the threat posed by light machine guns (and indeed, thinner than the WW1 tanks, some models of which had not been bullet proof to the detriment of their crews). With its many shot traps the vehicle was unable to withstand even anti-tank rifle fire and it had a high profile. The internal lay-out worsened this vulnerability as the petrol tanks were inside the main compartment.

The Medium Mark I was the first tank to see "mass" production since last tanks of the Great War were completed. No foreign orders were placed for the Medium Mark I, although apparently half a dozen went to Australia). It was in fact so well built that few replacements were needed. These British Mediums represented most of the world tank production during the 1920's. They never fired a shot in anger and their performance in a real battle can only be speculated upon but as the only modern tanks in existence in the decade after the First World War they provided the British with a unique opportunity to test the many new ideas about mechanised warfare using real operational units. This opportunity was exercised only grudgingly.

Image
Vickers Medium Mk I and II were outdated by the time the outbreak of ww2 and was used as trainers. A few were used in North Africa.

The Vickers Medium Mk II

The Medium Mk I's successor, the Vickers Medium Mark II, was derived directly from the Mk I and was intended to replace the last of the WW1-era Medium Mark Cs still in use. Production and rebuilding ran from 1925 until 1934, with the Mk II phased out of service from 1939. The Mark II used the same chassis, suspension and transmission as the Medium Mark I but had a new superstructure. It featured several improvements over the Vickers Mark I, among them a higher superstructure with the driver's vizor on top of it instead of in front of it; an improved suspension protected by armour skirts; and Rackham clutches, providing a primitive form of mechanical servo-control. Due to a slightly higher weight its rated speed was somewhat slower than that of the Medium Mark I, at 13 mph compared to 15 mph.

It had a fully rotating turret on top of the hull, but also mounted a dual-use 3-pounder gun (firing both high-explosive and anti-tank shells) with a coaxial machine gun. Other improvements included thicker armor, better driver vison, and armor skirting that provided protection for the suspension. The back of the turret had a slope so that the machine gun there could be used against aircraft.

Image
Vickers Medium Mk II

The Mk II weighed 12 tons, carried a crew of 5 and was powered by a 90hp Armstrong Siddeley V-8 engine, with a range of 193 kms. Armour varied from 6.25 to 8mm and was riveted, with armoured skirting also providing protection for the suspension. A number of variants were built (the list below is not exhaustive, I've omitted a few irrelevant variants such as tropical tanks, one-of prototypes, etc.). A total of 167 Mk II's were delivered between 1926 and 1929, although mnay were also rebuilt and improved on through the 1930's:
  • Mk II – the original version, of which one hundred were built
  • Mk II* - Fifty-six of the same vehicles with the Hotchkiss machine guns removed, a coaxial Vickers machine gun added and the commander's post shifted somewhat further back as in the original position he had been in a very real danger of being hit in the stomach by spent shells ejected by the main gun's breech block;
  • Mk IIA - Twenty vehicles newly built in 1930
  • Mk II** - in 1932 the remaining 44 Mark II's were brought to Mark II* standard; in addition a wireless set was fitted in an armoured container at the back of the turret. the weight rose to 13.5 short tons
  • Mk IIA CS - some Mark IIAs were later rebuilt as close support vehicles, their main armament replaced by a 15-pounder 3.7 inch mortar, mainly intended to give smoke cover, though some HE shells were also carried. Each company headquarters was equipped with two of these vehicles. The weight was increased to 14 tons.
  • Mk D - the Vickers Mk. D was a one-off design built for the Irish Free State and delivered in 1929. It had a more powerful, water cooled, rear mounted, 6-cylinder Sunbeam Amazon petrol engine, developing 170 bhp at 2100 rpm. A 6 pdr gun was fitted and as many as 4 Vickers .303 machine guns. The tank was scrapped in 1940.
  • Mk II Box Tank - This was a single command tank, converted from a Medium II in 1928, by removing the turret from the fighting compartment and fitting a large rectangular superstructure. Its only armament was a single machine gun in a ball mounting in the front of that armoured box. Two radio sets were fitted: a short range set for tactical communication and a long range one to contact higher levels. The Box tank was first used by a battalion commander and from 1931 by the Brigade Commander.
  • Birch Gun: three prototypes built between 1926 and 1929 of a self-propelled gun for the experiments then conducted in the field of mechanised warfare. The Mark I had the Ordnance QF 18 pounder, The Mark II chassis was lengthened and fitted with an 75 mm gun on a mounting capable of high elevations.

    Image
    Vickers Medium Mk II Box Tank
The Vickers A1E1 Independent

The Vickers Independent A1E1 was a multi-turreted tank designed by the British armaments manufacturer Vickers in the early 1920's. Although it only ever reached the prototype stage it would influence many other tank designs and is thus worthy of mention. The tank was the subject of industrial and political espionage, the plans ending up in the Soviet Union, where they may have influenced the design of the T-28 and T-35 tanks (the T-35 in particular was based extremely closely on its plans and layout). Norman Baillie-Stewart, a British military officer, was court-martialled in 1933 and served five years in prison for providing the plans of the Independent (among other secrets) to a German contact. The A1E1 design can be seen as a possible influence on the Soviet T-100 and T-28 tanks, the German Neubaufahrzeug tanks, and the British Medium Mk III and Cruiser Mk I (triple turret) tank designs.

Image
Independent Heavy Tank A1E1

In 1924 the General Staff of the British Army ordered the prototype of a heavy tank, which became known as the Independent. The Design Team was headed by Sir George Buckham, who had been with Vickers since 1895, with much of the design completed by Walter Gordon Wilson along with three relatively junior Tank Corps officers, Major Darwell and Captains Busk and Bloomer, from whom most of the ideas came. Its 35.8 litre V12 350hp air-cooled engine was designed by Armstrong Siddeley, and it also incorporated a new hydraulic braking system which had to be specially developed due to its weight and speed. The prototype was delivered to the War Office in 1926, but was abandoned due to a lack of funds.

The Independent was a multi-turret design, having a central gun turret armed with a 3 pounder (47 mm) gun, and four subsidiary turrets each armed with a 0.303 inch Vickers machine gun. The subsidiary turrets were mounted two at the front and two to the rear of the turret (about halfway along the hull). The gun of the left rear turret was able to elevate to engage aircraft. The tank was designed to have heavy firepower, self-defence capability, and superiority to enemy weapons. It had a crew of eight men, the commander communicating with the crew through an intercom system.

The Independent was the first tank worthy of being called a battle tank but was never used in combat. The drawback of course was the cost. For anyone interested, the Vickers A1E1 Independent is preserved at the Bovington Tank Museum in the UK, a mute witness to the spinelessness of Britain's inter-war politicians.

The story of ex-Gordon Highlander Norman Baillie-Stewart
(the below with all credit to phylo_roadking from www2talk.com and forum.axishistory for his posts on this gentleman)

Norman Baillie-Stewart (15 January 1909 – 7 June 1966) was a British army officer who became known as “The Officer in the Tower” when he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Baillie-Stewart was born to a military family named Wright and was given the forenames Norman Baillie Stewart. He attended Bedford School and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, where, as a cadet, he served as an orderly to Prince Henry, a younger son of King George V. In January 1929, while still a cadet, he changed his surname from Wright to “Baillie-Stewart”, perhaps under the belief that he was looked down upon by more senior officers, even though his father had been a colonel and his mother was from a family with a long tradition of military service. He graduated tenth in the order of merit and in February 1929 received a commission as a subaltern in the Seaforth Highlanders, although apparantly he he soon grew to dislike army life.

Image
Norman Baillie-Stewart

On a holiday in South Africa, Baillie-Stewart met a German woman with whom he fell in love. He decided to become a German citizen and wrote a letter to the German Consul in London offering his services. On holiday in Germany in 1931, he sold military secrets for sexual favours and relatively small amounts of money. His regular trips to the Netherlands to meet his handlers attracted suspicion and he was arrested in 1933. In the spring of 1933, Baillie-Stewart was court-martialed at Chelsea Barracks under the Official Secrets Act for selling military secrets to a foreign power. Amongst the military secrets that he sold to the Germans were the plans and photos of the A1E1 tank.

In a two-and-a-half-hour speech, the Prosecutor, Major Harold Shapcott, outlined the Government’s case. The court was told that Baillie-Stewart’s offending had begun in 1931 when he met and fell in love with a German woman while holidaying in Germany, and decided to become a German citizen, writing a letter to the German Consul in London offering his services. Receiving no answer, he traveled to Berlin without permission to take leave, where he telephoned the German Foreign Ministry and demanded to talk to an English speaker. This resulted in him making contact with a Major Mueller under the Brandenburg Gate, where he agreed to spy for Germany.

On the plea that he was studying for Staff College examinations, he had borrowed from the Aldershot Military Library the specifications and photographs of an experimental tank, the Vickers A1E1 Independent, and a new automatic rifle for the infantry, as well as notes on the organization of tank and armored car units. Without special permission he had visited Berlin on leave. It was charged that he sold his secrets to a mysterious German known as “Otto Waldemar Obst”. Major Shapcott pointed out that Obst sounds like Oberst which means Colonel. (That Obst means “fruit” was not brought forward). For these secrets it was charged that Baillie-Stewart received two letters signed “Marie Louise,” one containing ten £5 notes, the other four £10 notes. Evidence was also produced that he had also made several trips to the Netherlands to meet with his handlers. (MI5′s files have since shown that Marie-Luise had been merely a figment of his controller’s imagination; Major Mueller’s covername was Obst (fruit) and Baillie-Stewart’s was Poiret (little pear), while Marie-Luise, a type of pear, was used to conceal their correspondence).

Because Britain is not at war Lieut. Baillie-Stewart’s life was not at stake, but there were ten charges against him. with a maximum penalty of 140 years in jail. He was imprisoned for five years, which he served at the Tower of London, the last British subject to be imprisoned there. While imprisoned, Baillie-Stewart was displayed daily for the public. After his release from prison in 1937, Baillie-Stewart moved to Vienna, where he applied for Austrian citizenship. However, this was refused since he did not meet the residency qualification. In August 1937, the Austrian government suspected him of being a Nazi agent and gave him 3 weeks to leave Austria. Baillie-Stewart’s disenchantment with Britain was increased when the British Embassy in Vienna refused to help him. Rather than return to Britain he moved to Bratislava, which was then in Czechoslovakia.

Following the Anschluss of 1938, Baillie-Stewart was able to return to Austria, where he made a small living from operating a trading company. He applied for naturalisation but the application was delayed by bureaucracy at the Ministry and he did not become a German citizen until 1940. In July 1939, Baillie-Stewart attended a friend’s party where he happened to hear some German English-language propaganda broadcasts. He criticised the broadcasts, and was overheard by a guest at the party who happened to work at the Austrian radio station. He informed his superiors of Baillie-Stewart’s comments, and after a successful voice test in Berlin, Baillie-Stewart was ordered by the German Propaganda Ministry to report to the Reichsrundfunk in Berlin, where he became a propaganda broadcaster. Baillie-Stewart made his first broadcast on the “Germany Calling” English language service a week before the United Kingdom declared war on Germany, reading Nazi-biased “news”.

It has been speculated that it was Baillie-Stewart who made the broadcast which led the pseudonymous Daily Express radio critic Jonah Barrington to coin the term “Lord Haw-Haw”. The nickname possibly referenced Baillie-Stewart’s exaggeratedly aristocratic way of speaking, though Wolf Mittler, another English-speaking announcer, is sometimes considered a more likely candidate. When William Joyce later became the most prominent Nazi propaganda broadcaster, Barrington appended the title and named Joyce “Lord Haw-Haw”, since the true identity of the broadcaster was unknown at the time. Another nickname which was possibly applied to Baillie-Stewart was “Sinister Sam”. By the end of September 1939 it was clear to the radio authorities that Joyce, originally Baillie-Stewart’s backup man, was more effective. Baillie-Stewart, who had gradually became disenchanted with the material that he had to broadcast, was dismissed in December 1939 shortly after his last radio broadcast. He continued to work in Berlin as a translator for the German Foreign Ministry, and lectured in English at Berlin University. In early 1940, he acquired German citizenship. In early 1942, Baillie-Stewart made a brief return to radio under the alias of “Lancer”, making several broadcasts for both the Reichsrundfunk and Radio Luxembourg. He spent much time avoiding the more blatant propaganda material he was asked to present.

In 1944, Baillie-Stewart had himself sent to Vienna for medical treatment, where he was arrested in 1945 in Altaussee, while wearing “chamois leather shorts, embroidered braces and a forester’s jacket” and was sent to Britain to face charges of high treason. Baillie-Stewart only avoided execution because the Attorney-General, Hartley Shawcross, did not think he could successfully try him on charges of high treason, committed by taking German citizenship, and instead decided to try him on the lesser charge of “committing an act likely to assist the enemy”. MI5 reportedly lobbied for him to be sent to the Soviet occupation zone of Germany, where there would be no “namby-pamby legal hair-splitting”. Baillie-Stewart pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, following which he moved to Ireland under the pseudonym of James Scott, married, and had two children before dying on a Dublin street of a heart attack in 1966.

However, the most memorable end result of his short-lived career as a spy were the German and Soviet derivatives of the one and only Vickers A1E1 Independent Tank. During the 1920s and 1930s, a number of countries experimented with very large, multi-turreted tanks. The British built a single example of the Vickers A1E1 Independent in 1926. The technical details of the Vickers A1E1 Independent were then available to the Germans. No doubt the Russians also acquired a copy of the design. Development of the Neubaufahrzeug (German for “new construction vehicle”) started in 1933 when the then Reichswehr gave a contract for the development of a Großtraktor(“heavy tractor”) to both Rheinmetall and Krupp. Großtraktor was a codename for the development of a heavy tank, Germany being still forbidden to develop tanks under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

Image
The German Neubaufahrzeug Tank

The Rheinmetall and Krupp designs resembled each other to a great extent, the main difference being the weapons placement. Each had a main turret armed with a 75 mm KwK L/24 main gun and secondary 37 mm KwK L/45. Rheinmetall’s design mounted the second gun above the 75 mm KwK L/24, while the Krupp design had it mounted next to the 75 mm KwK L/24. Both designs had a secondary turret mounted to the front and the rear of the main turret. These turrets were slightly adapted Panzer I turrets, with the standard machine gun armament. Rheinmetall’s design was designated PzKpfw NbFz V (PanzerKampfwagen NeubauFahrzeug V), and the Krupp design PzKpfw NbFz VI. It was intended that these designs would fulfill the role of heavy tank in the armored forces, but the design proved to be too complex and unreliable for this role. Nevertheless, development continued in order for the nascent German military to gain experience with multi-turreted tanks. In 1934 Rheinmetall built two mild steel prototypes, both with their own turret design. Three more prototypes were built with proper armor and the Krupp turret in 1935 and 1936.

Image
Neubaufahrzeug while being repaired

Though these tanks were never placed in production, they provided a propaganda tool for Nazi Germany, for example being shown at the International Automobile Exposition in Berlin in 1939. This propaganda role was extended with the German invasion of Norway, when a special Panzerabteilung was formed which took the three armored prototypes with them to Oslo. They saw some combat there, with one being blown up by German engineers when it got stuck in swamps near Åndalsnes. To replace it, one of the mild steel prototypes was used. It is unclear what happened to the tanks after the Norway campaign, but none of them survived the war. The surviving vehicles were ordered scrapped in 1941, which took place in 1942 according to documents captured by the British in 1945. The dates upon which the vehicles were scrapped are unclear, but it is thought that the beginning of the construction of the Sturer Emil prototypes dates from the same time. All that survives of these tanks is a small number of running gear parts, preserved in the Gudbrandsdal Krigsminnesamling (Gudbrandsdal War Memorial collection), at Kvam in Norway.

Similarly, the Soviet Union built rather more of the T-35, another clone of the Vickers A1E1 Independent (some 61 T35′s were built). Work began on the T-35 design in 1930 at the OKMO Design Bureau of the Bolshevik Factory, with a design team headed by N. Tsiets. By July 1932, a prototype of a 35 ton tank with a 76.2 mm tank gun was completed. The first prototype was further enhanced with four smaller turrets, two with 37 mm guns and two with machine guns. This first prototype had severe defects in its transmission and was considered too complex and expensive for mass production. Therefore work on it was stopped and a new simpler prototype was built. This new prototype received a new engine, new gearbox and improved transmission. The decision was also made to standardise the turrets used on the T-35 with those employed on the T-28, a triple-turreted medium tank. The small machine-gun turrets were identical on the two tanks. The large main turret housing the 76.2 mm gun was nearly identical, but those used on the T-28 had an additional, rear-firing machine gun. On 11 August 1933, the T-35 was accepted for production. Engineering was shifted to the Kharkov Locomotive Factory, and two batches of ten vehicles were completed.

Image
Soviet T35 Tank

The experiences gained with the two prototypes were used for the main production T-35 Model 1935, which was again improved from the second prototype, with a longer chassis, improved hull and 45-mm guns in place of the 37s. It started production in 1935, and about 35 were built by 1938. In general, throughout its production run small improvements were made to the individual tanks. Production tanks had turrets similar to the ones on the BT-5, but without the rear overhang. Some examples had flamethrowers instead of one of the 45 mm guns. The final batch was a run of six T-35 Model 1938′s, which had new turrets with sloped armour all around, as well as modified side skirts and new idler wheels.

Western and Russian historians disagree about the inspiration for the T-35′s design. The former argue it was inspired by the British Vickers A1E1 Independent tank, but this is rejected by many Russian specialists. It is impossible to know the truth, but there is strong evidence to support Western claims, not least failed Soviet attempts to purchase the A1E1. At the same time, the influence of German engineers, who in the late 1920s were developing similar designs at their Kama base in the Soviet Union, cannot be discounted. What is clear is that borrowing military technology and ideas from other nations was common to the majority of the armed forces in the inter-war years. The Red Army, with its purchase of the British Vickers Carden Loyd tankette, Vickers E-Light and Cruiser Mk II Medium tanks, and of the American Christie suspension for production use in its own vehicles, was clearly one of the leading exponents of this practice. Due to its high cost, the production run of the T-35 ended at just sixty-one tanks.

Image
Knocked out Soviet T-35 tank

During Operation Barbarossa, ninety percent of the T-35′s lost by the 67th and 68th Tank Regiments were lost not to enemy action but through either mechanical failure or because they were abandoned and destroyed by their crews. The most common causes of breakdown were transmission-related. The last recorded action of the T-35 took place during the early stages of the Battle of Moscow. At least one captured T-35 was shipped to Germany for evaluation at the Kummersdorf military proving ground. The T-35 is sometimes cited as having participated in the Winter War against Finland, but according to Soviet sources it did not. In fact, two other prototypes of multi-turreted heavy tanks had been sent to the front for testing:T-100 and SMK. The SMK tank was disabled by a Finnish land mine and all attempts to recover the 55-ton behemoth failed. Finnish photographs of the previously unknown tank were mistakenly designated T-35C by German intelligence. Four T-35 machines were used in training facilities in the Soviet rear. One of these still exists in running condition and is accessible to visitors at the Kubinka Tank Museum near Moscow.

Image
German troops posing on a captured T-35

The Vickers Medium Mk III (A7)

The Medium Mark III was unsuccessful with only 3 built. The design did not directly derive from earlier Medium Mark II tank but did apply some improvements. The Medium Mk III had its origins in 1926, with the British War Office interested in replacing their existing Mark II tanks with a new design. In May 1926 the Royal Tank Corps Centre was asked for its opinion, which it submitted in July. One of the requirements was a weight limit of 15.5 tons, which led to the nickname "16-tonners". Other specifications included that it could transported by rail; a sufficient supply of lubrication oil to match the range of the tank (dictated by the fuel carried); a wireless set; a gun capable of defeating enemy armour at a range of at least a thousand yards; fuel tanks external to the main compartments and bottom armour sufficient to withstand heavy machine-gun fire when exposed while climbing a crest. Furthermore the machine should be as silent as possible, as with previous types the engine noise tended to incapacitate the crew. The War Office added some extra requirements: a separate engine compartment; superior steering capacity and 13 millimetres frontal armour with 9 millimetres thickness for the other plates.

Image
A Medium Mk III in use as a command vehicle

In September 1926, Vickers, after being given the order to build a prototype, proposed a first design based on the Vickers A1E1 Independent, with the fighting compartment in front and the engine compartment at the back. There would be a central two-man turret with a 3-pounder (47 mm) gun and a coaxial machine-gun; it was intended to house the commander and a special observer, each being provided a separate cupola. In the front of the hull were to be placed two secondary machine-gun turrets, each with a twin Vickers machine gun. At the back of the vehicle, behind the main turret a third machine-gun turret was intended, armed with an anti-aircraft (AA) weapon. A crew of seven men was proposed. Maximum armour would be 13 millimetres and basic armour 6.5 millimetres, limiting the weight to fourteen tons. Riveted plates were to be used. The total fuel supply would be 120 imp gal (550 l) gallons: ten in a small tank inside, gravity feeding the engine; the remainder in external tanks on the fenders. Two engine options were provided: a 120 hp engine that would allow for a speed of 14 mph and a 180 hp engine that would raise this to 20 mph (32 km/h). The design was called the A6.

Image
Vickers Medium Mk III in the factory

In March 1927 a wooden mock-up was presented and after approval, two prototypes were ordered, with the prototypes to incorporate the new hydraulically operated Wilson epicyclic steering gearbox, the predecessor of the Merrit-Brown gearbox. By June 1928 both prototypes (A6E1 and A6E2) were presented to the Mechanized Warfare Experimental Establishment for trials. Vickers was on this occasion ordered to add armour skirts but keep within the weight limit even if it meant removing armour elsewhere. Meanwhile a third prototype had been ordered: A6E3. A6E1, A6E2 and A6E3 were fitted with an Armstrong Siddeley air-cooled V8 180 hp engine giving a maximum speed of 26 mph. A6E2 was later fitted with the Ricardo CI 180 hp engine but this was not satisfactory and the Armstrong-Siddeley was refitted. A6E3 was later re-engined with the Thornycroft 6V 500 hp - a slow running marine engine. It was proposed to combine two Rolls-Royce Phantom engines with the Wilson transmission system on the A6E1, but in view of the costs this was rejected. A6E2 was eventually refitted with the AS V8 180 hp.

The guns were tested in July 1928. This proved that the twin-machine gun arrangement was unworkable; so the A6E3, then being constructed, was fitted with a simplified design with a single machine-gun; it also had single cupola on the centreline of the turret. The AA-turret was removed from A6E1. However it was also shown that the suspension and the gunnery arrangements were distinctly inferior to those of the Mark II. It was therefore decided to discontinue the development of the type and use the three vehicles merely as test-beds for the automotive parts. In 1929 Vickers submitted three alternative suspension designs, which were fitted to the respective prototypes; one of these, tried on A6E3, involved a fundamental reconstruction of the hull. None proved able to provide a stable gun platform. Only in 1934 was a satisfactory type was fitted by a specialised firm.

The disappointments in the A6 design led to a new design, the "Medium Mark III", being ordered in 1928 and constructed from 1930. It was similar to the A6 design but featured a new turret and improved armour. The turret had a flat gun mantlet and a bulge at the back to hold a radio set. The secondary machine-gun turrets were moved more to the front to shift the centre of gravity of the entire vehicle forward to improve its stability. Larger brakes were fitted. Trials were completed of the first two prototypes in 1933. The type was reliable and provided a good gun platform. However, it still suffered from poor suspension design: while road speed had been increased to thirty miles per hour, the bogies were often overloaded during cross-country travel. Three Mark IIIs were built, one by Vickers and two by the Royal Ordnance Factory at Woolwich: Medium III E1, E2 and E3. The third had an improved suspension and in 1934 the vehicles were taken into use by the HQ of the Tank Brigade. However, no orders followed due to the high price of the machines.

One of the Medium Mark III's was fitted as a command vehicle with an extra radio aerial around the turret. This was used by Brigadier Percy Hobart for the Salisbury Plain exercises during 1934.

British Tankettes and Light Tanks of the 1920's and 1930's

In the 1920's, only in Britain did the idea of establishing armoured forces as a decisive arm of the Army in their own right take root – but even in Britain it cannot be said that there was a great deal of enthusiasm – and it must also be remembered that Britain's principal defence commitments were directed to the maintenance of order on the fringes of the Empire. And many of the pundits suggested that in any case, even if tanks were needed in the next war as in the last, they would soon be knocked out by anti-tank guns. Machineguns were seen as of more importance on the battlefield by many – and in 1925 two British designers made separate approaches to the same solution.

Image
Major Giffard Le Quesne Martel

Major Giffard Martel, backed by the resources of the motor vehicle manufactuer William Morris, and John Carden, working in the garage of a Mr. Loyd, built machinegun carriers that were cheap, small and easy to mass produce. Both aimed to offer the option of fighting mounted or dismounted. Carden and Loyd rapidly took the lead in development and managed to get the British Army interested in their vehicle for reconnaissance purposes as well as for a weapons carrier. By doing so they blurred the original concept, for the Army called Carden-Loyd's carriers "Tankettes" and thus gave the impression that the Tank Corps and not the Infantry had a vested interest in them.

Sir John Valentine Carden, 6th Baronet, MBE (6 February 1892 – 10 December 1935) was an English tank and vehicle designer. He was the sixth Baronet of Templemore, Tipperary, from 1931. Born in London, Carden was a talented, self-taught engineer, with an ability to put his ideas to practical use. From 1914 to 1916, he ran a company that manufactured light passenger-cars under the brand Carden. The company’s first model was a cyclecar, with seating only for the driver. During the First World War, Carden served in the Army Service Corps and gained the rank of Captain, acquiring experience with vehicles such as tracked Holt tractors. After the war, he returned to car manufacturing but sold his original design and factory to Ward and Avey who renamed it the AV. He then designed a new cyclecar and started manufacture at Ascot but at the end of 1919 sold the design to E. A. Tamplin who continued manufacture as the Tamplin car. A further design followed with a two seat fibreboard body. Carden even sold one of these to King Alfonso XIII of Spain before selling the company to new owners in 1922 who renamed it the New Carden.

Two or three years later, Carden met car-designer Vivian Loyd and the two started a small company in Chertsey named Carden-Loyd, working on light, tracked vehicles for military use. Carden was reportedly described as an “introvert engineering genius”, while Loyd was conversely described as an “extrovert engineer-salesman”. What brought the pair real success was a tankette design: the first Carden-Loyd One-Man Tankette, which was designed in 1925. In the next two years, it was developed into Marks I, II and III, and later, two-man tankette models Mark IV and Mark V. All were built in small numbers but were very promising, and, as a result, Carden-Loyd was bought by Vickers-Armstrongs in March 1928. Carden himself was employed by Vickers as the technical director. The pair continued developing their tankette model, eventually creating their best-known design, the Mark VI. It became the first successful design for that vehicle type in the world, and a classic one, several hundred being produced and exported to 16 countries. Many foreign tankette models developed later were said to be inspired by the Mark VI.


Image
Sir John Carden at Heston Airport 3 October 1935; L. E. Baynes on left, Stephen Appleby on right

Carden and Loyd also designed light tanks, such as the well-known Vickers-Armstrongs Commercial Light Tanks series (used, for example, in Belgium) and the British Army’s Light Tanks, including the Light Tank Mk VI (one of Carden’s last designs). The pair also developed the world’s first amphibious tank, the Vickers-Carden-Loyd Amphibian Tank, and played a role in the development of the Vickers E tank model. Aside from tanks, Carden and Loyd also developed several light artillery tractors and carriers, including the VA D50 model, which was a prototype of the Bren Carrier. Carden’s interest in flying also led him to build an ultralight plane based on the French “Flying Flea”, using a modified Ford engine uprated from 10 bhp to 31 bhp. In 1935, Carden started Carden Aero Engines Ltd., an aircraft engine manufacturer. A partnership with L.E. Baynes led to the founding of Carden Baynes Aircraft Ltd., which produced gliders of Baynes’ design fitted with auxiliary engines. John Carden was killed in an air crash near Tatsfield, Surrey on 10 December 1935, while flying on a Sabena airliner.

Vivian Loyd (1894-1972) was born in Berkshire, to a family of Welsh origin. He was educated at Wellington , after which he worked in a bank in Canada. After the outbreak of World War I he returned to the UK and served in the British artillery. During the war he served in, amongst other locations, Mesopotamia , where he contracted tuberculosis , which was the reason for his subsequent health problems. After the war, in 1922, Loyd founded a small car manufacturing company together with A. Lord where they built passenger cars of Loyd’s design, under the brand name Loyd-Lord (likely a tongue in cheek reference to the Rolls-Royce label). Falling into debt, the company was liquidated in 1924. In 1922 or 1923 Loyd met self-taught engineer John Carden , with whom he founded the small Carden-Loyd Tractor Company in Chertsey near London. Together they started working on the design of tracked vehicles, primarily with military applications.

Image
A small low-res scan of the young Vivian Loyd, from Foss & McKenzie’s excellent work: ‘The Vickers Tanks’

Carden was chief engineer on the team while Loyd was mainly responsible for organizational issues and marketing. Loyd remained in the shadow of John Carden, and after Carden’s death in a plane crash in 1935, relations between Vickers management and Loyd deteriorated. In September 1938 Loyd finally left Vickers and founded his own company, Vivian Loyd & Co. In August 1938 he presented a prototype of a low-cost light tracked artillery tractor, the Loyd Carrier. It was ordered by the British army during the war and more than 26,000 units were built, 2,790 from Loyd’s factory. After the war, Loyd tried to offer the tractor to the civilian market. Loyd died in 1972 at his farm in Berkshire. He was married three times and had two sons and two daughters.

Carden and Loyd rapidly took the lead in development and managed to get the British Army interested in their vehicle for reconnaissance purposes as well as for a weapons carrier. By doing so they blurred the original concept, for the Army called Carden-Loyd’s carriers “Tankettes” and thus gave the impression that the Tank Corps and not the Infantry had a vested interest in them. In practice, carriers extended the range and safety of infantrymen and gave them a golden opportunity to raise their speed to that of the tank arm by acting as a team whicj could be formed around the principal armoured fighting vehicle – the tank. This was the essence of the "All Armoured Idea", which few at the time really understood, and which many more traditionally minded soldiers reviled as the "All Tank Idea."

Steadily, these versatile little Carriers were improved and for lack of anything better, played an important part in reconnaissance and protection duties for the main force of medium tanks during the first British Armoured Force experiements of 1927 and 1928. Carden-Loyd would be bought out by Vickers in 1928. The Carden0Loyd carriers grew into Light Tanks, while foreign purchasers came forward to buy the basic vehicle and adapt it in their own factories to suit their own requirements. France's UE, Russia's T-27 and the Italian CV-33/35 came closer to the weapons carrier concept, although they are often referred to as tanks. In Britain, the weapon carrier would return to the Infantry in 1935 with the introduction of the Universal Carrier, a tracked and lightly armoured carrier which would become ubiquitos within the British Army through WW2.

Morris-Martel Tankette - 1927

The Morris-Martel was a British inter-war tankette developed from prototypes designed by Lieutenant-General Sir Giffard Le Quesne Martel. Martel decided he would build a small tank himself and he did this in the garage of his house near Camberley. He took the engine from an old Maxwell car, the back-axle of a Ford lorry and a set of tracks made for him by the Roadless Traction Company. He showed the result of in 1925. It was only eight feet long by five feet high but it worked and the War Office ordered four to be made by William Morris.

Image
Morris-Martel One Man Tankette

Intended for reconnaissance, eight in all were constructed for the Experimental Mechanized Force and were tested against experimental models of the Carden Loyd tankette - built by John Carden and Vivian Loyd as a response to Martel's work - on Salisbury plain in 1927. The project was abandoned after testing with the Carden Loyd design chosen instead, however during its short existence the tankette attracted "quite a lot of publicity" and was a pioneer of the tankette concept.

Carden Loyd Tankette – 1927 to 1935

The Carden Loyd tankettes were a series of British pre-World War II tankettes, the most successful of which was the Mark VI, the only version built in significant numbers. It became a classic tankette design worldwide, was licence-built by several countries and became the basis of several designs produced in several different countries.

The Carden Loyd tankette came about from an idea of the British military engineer and tank strategist Major Giffard LeQuesne Martel, who started designing and building a small tankette as a private project. He built a one-man tank in his garage from various parts and showed it to the War Office in the mid-1920s. With the publication of the idea, other companies produced their own interpretations of the idea. One of these was Carden-Loyd Tractors Ltd, a firm founded by Sir John Carden and Vivian Loyd and later purchased by Vickers-Armstrong. Besides one-man vehicles they also proposed two-man vehicles which turned out to be a more effective and popular idea. Vickers-Armstrong manufactured and marketed vehicles of the latter type worldwide.

Considered a reconnaissance vehicle and a mobile machine gun position, the Mark VI was the final stage of development of the Carden- Loyd series of tankettes. The Carden Loyd tankette can also be considered an early prototype for the Universal Carrier (Bren Gun Carrier).

Production started in 1927 and lasted until 1935. From 1933 to 1935 some 450 Carden-Loyd tankettes were manufactured by the Royal Ordnance Factories. The British Army used at least 325 Mark VI tankettes in several variants, mostly as machine gun carriers, but also as light gun tractors, mortar carriers or smoke projector vehicles. They were also sold and/or licensed in considerable numbers to Poland, Czechosolvakia, the Soviet Union, Bolivia, Japan, Italy and Canada. In addition, the Carden Loyd tankettes were also supplied in small numbers to France, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Siam, chile, the Reoublic of China, Finland and Portugal. The French unarmed Renault UE carrier was also based on the Carden Loyd design. The design of the German Panzer I light tank was somewhat influenced by the Carden Loyd tankette (apparently as a result of German military cooperation with the Soviet Union).

Image
The Mark VI was the final stage of development of the Carden- Loyd series of tankettes.

The Carden-Loyd Mk VI tankette weighed 1.5 tons, was 8 ft in length, 6ft 6in wide and had a height of 4ft. With a crew of 2, it was armed with a single .303 Vickers machinegun with 1,000 rounds. The 4 cylinder 22.5 hp Ford Model-T petrol engine with a 10 gallon fuel tank gave the tankette a range of 100 miles with a 30mph maximum road speed.
ex Ngāti Tumatauenga ("Tribe of the Maori War God") aka the New Zealand Army

User avatar
CanKiwi2
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 26 Nov 2010, 16:48
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: What If-Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

#662

Post by CanKiwi2 » 13 Jul 2014, 13:55

Light Tanks Mk I – Mk V

Following the activities of the British Army's Experimental Mechanized Force in the late 1920s, the Army identified a need for two light tracked vehicles; one to carry a machine gun for the infantry and one with a turret for the Royal Tank Corps. The Carden-Loyd tankette described above became the infantry vehicle, while at the same time Carden developed privately a number of light two-man tank designs. Carden's Mark VII design was accepted as a prototype for the Army's light tank. By that point Carden-Loyd was part of Vickers-Armstrong. Only a few of the first light tanks were built and although never issued per se gave useful information for subsequent development.

Image
Vickers Light Tank Mk VI C – By the Mark V, the design was more or less optimized and it was the final development of in the form of the Light Tank Mk VI which was chosen for the British Army expansion program in expectation of war.

The Light Tanks Mark I to Mark VI were a series of closely related designs of light tanks produced by Vickers for the British Army during the interwar period with the various marks produced in relatively small numbers. They saw use in training, and in limited engagements with British Empire units such as the South African Army during the East African Campaign of 1941. All were around 5 long tons in weight and capable of 30 mph (50 km/h) on roads and around 20 mph (30 km/h) cross-country. The British did not expect their light tanks to be used against anything except other light tanks at most and as such armament was a machine gun only — Vickers machine guns firing either a .303 inch or .50-inch (12.7 mm) round. Suspension was Horstmann coil spring on bogies. The engine was a Meadows 6-cylinder petrol. Up until the Mk V, they had a crew of two: a driver/commander and gunner. The Mk V had a crew of three: a driver, a gunner, and the commander helping on the gun.

By the Mark V, the design was more or less optimized and it was the final development of in the form of the Light Tank Mk VI which was chosen for the British Army expansion programme in expectation of war.

Image
The Light Tank Mk I: 4 or 5 were manufactured based on the Carden Loyd Mk VIII design. A further 5 Mk IA's were produced, 4 of which were sent to India. The Mark IA had a larger superstructure and a larger turret to give room for operating the machine gun. Horstmann suspension with horizontal coil springs replaced the leaf springs of the Mark I.

Image
The Light Tank Mk II: The Mark II used a 66 hp Rolls-Royce engine which was, along with Wilson preselector gearbox and transmission, positioned on the right hand side of the tank. This gave the left-hand side free for the crew of driver and commander. The turret was rectangular in form and the machine gun was modified for vehicle use with a pistol grip instead of the spade grips of the infantry version. Vickers Armstrong build 16 Mk II's from 1929. A further 29 Mk IIA's were built by the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich and 21 Mk IIB's were built by Vickers0Armstrong.

Image
Vickers Light Tank Mk IIB India Pattern

Image
The Light Tank Mk III: The Mark III light tank suspension was made out of Horstmann coil spring resting on bogies with two rubber-lined wheel sets per bogie. This design, invented by Sidney Horstmann and exclusively used on lightweight vehicles, was also used up to the Light Tank Mk VI of the British Army. Apart from being relatively easy to built, compact and lightweight, it had the advantage of having a long travel, and of being easy to replace when damaged in the field. The drive sprocket was in the front, the idler-wheels were placed in the rear, with two return rollers. Th engine was a Henry Meadows 6-cylinder gasoline engine, producing 88 hp, coupled with a four speed preselector gearbox. Steering was a combination of declutching the drive to one track and braking to increase the turn. The traverse of the turret was electrically actuated. Vickers Armstrong built 42 from 1934 with a Rolls-Royce engine, Wilson gearbox, rev ised suspension and an extended rear superstructure. Of these, 36 were sent to Egypt.

Image
The Light Tank Mk IV: The Mk IV was designed in 1933 with 34 built from 1934.

Image
Vickers Light Tank Mk IV

Image
Vickers Light Tank Mk IV – somewhere tropical – India perhaps?

Image
The Light Tank Mk V: The biggest change from the Mark IV to the Mark V was the introduction of a three-man crew. The turret now carried the commander and a gunner who was also the radio operator. The increase in the crew size made a lot of difference to the tank's effectiveness and spread the maintenance load. Until then, the commander had to direct the driver, navigate, and operate the gun. If troop commander, he also had to direct the other tanks and their fire. Although the drivetrain and chassis were close to the former Mark IV, the hull was widened, heightened and lengthened, and the new turret was larger, rounder, with sloping sides. The turret ball race counted 213 ball bearings (3 degree for each the traverse wheel turn), and it was held in place by six clips. At the bottom was a pedestal containing the radio batteries, ammunition and gunner’s seat. The latter also operated the radio, although the well-loped turret’s rear made it difficult for a radio to fit. The gunner used his shoulder to elevate the two independent Besa machine-guns, one .303 (7.62 mm) and one heavy cal. 50 (12.7 mm), which gave the vehicle some antitank capability .The armament of the Mark V was also an improvement over the earlier Marks and gave the tank a reasonable anti-tank capability against other light tanks – at the time most European light tanks had around 12–14 mm of armour – but it was not updated as more armoured light tanks came into use.

There was a sighting scope with one scale for each gun. The commander had a rounded cupola of the “bishop’s mitre” type. To allow larger fuel tanks to be fitted at the rear, this part was lengthened and, consequently, a rear idler was added, compensating for the weight shift and improving handling. A single return roller was placed just above the front coil spring arm. Components and tracks were the same as previously used on the Mark I. Overall these choices appeared judicious. A three man crew also spread the maintenance load. The top speed was reduced, but the range was undiminished. It was half a ton heavier – and about 18 inches longer – than the Mark IV. The weight increase had the effect of reducing the top speed to 32 mph though range was largely unchanged. A total of 22 were produced over 1936.


Image
An interesting variant was the AA gun version. For this, twin 15 mm (0.59 in) AA Besa machine-guns or quad Boulton & Paul AA machine-guns (same type mounted in the 1938 Defiant fighter’s turret), were mounted on one or two separate Mk.V light tanks. The following Mk.I AA tank (quad 7.92 mm/0.31 in Besa mounted on the Mk.VIA) was produced in limited numbers and the Mk.II AA was identical, but with an enlarged turret plus external ammunition box. The Mark V AA prototypes pioneered these series. An experimental antitank version was also tried with a 2pdr (40 mm/1.58 in) fit in an open-top turret, and another fitted the same gun in a large, sloping back turret. Other tested various technical modifications, like receiving an extra bogie wheel and longer track, a continuous rubber track, a Perkins diesel engine, revised turret bustle for radio, wireless box, no top rollers configuration, or without “Bishop’s Mitre” Cupola.

Image
The Light Tank Mk VI: The Light Tank Mk VI was the sixth in the line of light tanks built by Vickers-Armstrongs for the British Army during the interwar period. The company had achieved a degree of standardization with their previous five models, and the Mark VI was identical in all but a few respects. The turret, which had been expanded in the Mk V to allow a three-man crew to operate the tank, was further expanded to give room in its rear for a wireless set. The weight of the tank was increased, which although heavier than previous models actually improved its handling characteristics. An 88 horsepower (66 kW) engine was added to the model to increase its maximum speed to 35 miles per hour (56 km/h).

It had the Horstmann coil-spring suspension system which was found to be durable and reliable, although the fact that the tank was short in relation to its width and that it pitched violently on rough ground made accurate gunnery whilst moving exceptionally difficult. The Mk VI carried a crew of three consisting of a driver, gunner and commander who also doubled as the radio operator. With between 4 millimetres (0.16 in) and 14 millimetres (0.55 in) of armour, it could resist rifle and machine gun bullets. Its armament consisted of one water-cooled .303 inch and one .50 inch Vickers machine gun.

Production of the Mk VI began in 1936 and ended in 1940 with 1,682 Mark VI tanks having been built. Many of those produced were actually variants designed to solve problems found with the original design. The Mk VIA had a return roller removed from the top of the leading bogey and attached to the hull sides instead, and also possessed a faceted cupola. The Mk VIB was mechanically identical to the Mk VIA but with a few minor differences to make production simpler, including a one-piece armoured louvre over the radiator instead of a two-piece louvre, and a plain circular cupola instead of the faceted type.

The Mk VIC, which was the last in the MK VI series, had the commanders cupola removed and had wider bogies and three carburettors to improve engine performance; it was also more powerfully armed than the other models, replacing the .303 and .50 Vickers machine guns with a co-axial 15-millimetre (0.59 in) and a 7.92-millimetre (0.312 in) Besa machine gun. A small number of specialized variations were also built based on the Mk VI chassis. The Tank, Light, AA Mk I was built in the aftermath of the Battle of France and was intended to act as a counter-measure against attacks by German aircraft. It featured a power-operated turret fitted with four 7.92 mm Besa machine guns; a Mk II was produced which was mechanically similar but had improvements, such as better quality sights for the machine guns and a larger turret for easier access. A variant on the Mk VIB was produced for service with the British Indian Army, in which the commanders cupola was removed and replaced with a hatch in the turret roof.

Image
Britain’s Light Tank Mk VI AA Mk II

When the Mk VI was first produced in 1936, the Imperial General Staff considered the tank to be superior to any light tank produced by other nations, and well suited to the dual roles of reconnaissance and colonial warfare. When the British government began its rearmament process in 1937, the Mk VI was the only tank with which the War Office was ready to proceed with manufacturing. The development of a medium tank for the Army had hit severe problems after the cancellation of the proposed "Sixteen Tonner" medium tank in 1932 due to the costs involved, and cheaper models only existed as prototypes with a number of mechanical problems. As a result of this, when the Second World War began in September 1939, the vast majority of the tanks available to the British Army were Mk VI's, with 1,002 in service.

Image
British Mk VI Light tank

The Vickers 6-Ton Light Tank – 1928 thru the 1930's

The Vickers 6-Ton Tank or Vickers Mark E was designed as a private project by Vickers. It was never purchased by the British Army, but was bought by a large number of foreign armed forces and was licenced with few improvements by the Soviets as the T-26. It was also the direct predecessor of the Polish 7TP tank. By the start of World War II it was the second most common tank design in the world after the Renault FT. The first Mark E was built in 1928 by a design team that included the famed tank designers John Valentine Carden and Vivian Loyd. The hull was made of riveted steel plates, 1 inch (25 mm) thick at the front and over most of the turrets, and about 3/4 inch (19 mm) thick on the rear of the hull. The power was provided by an Armstrong Siddeley Puma engine of 80–95 horsepower (60–70 kW) (depending on the version), which gave it a top speed of 22 mph (35 km/h) on roads. The suspension used two axles, each of which carried a two-wheel bogie to which a second set of bogies was connected with a leaf spring. Upward movement of either set of bogies would force the other down through the spring. This was considered to be a fairly good system and offered better than normal cross-country performance although it did not compare with the contemporary Christie suspension. High strength steel tracks gave over 3000 miles (5000 km) of life which was considerably better than most designs of the era.

Image
Vickers 6-ton Mark E Type B with large air vents

The tank was built in two versions:
  • The Type A with two turrets, each mounting a Vickers machine gun.
  • The Type B with a single two-man turret mounting a single machine gun and a short-barreled 47 mm cannon OQF 3-pdr Gun.
The Type B proved to be a real innovation, it was found that the two-man turret dramatically increased the rate of fire of either weapon, while still allowing both to be fired at the same time. This design, which was referred to as a duplex mounting, became common on almost all tanks designed afterwards.

Image
Vickers 6-Ton Tanks under construction at the Vickers Works

The British Army evaluated the Mark E, but rejected it, apparently due to questions about the reliability of the suspension. Vickers then started advertising the design to all buyers, and soon received a trickle of orders eventually including the USSR, Greece, Poland, Bolivia, Siam, Finland, Portugal, China and Bulgaria. A Thai order was placed, but taken over by the British when the war started. Vickers built a total of 153 (the most common figure) Mark E's. Experience with the Polish machines showed that the engine tended to overheat due to poor airflow over the air-cooled Puma engine. This was addressed by the addition of large air vents on either side of the hull.

Image
Soviet T26 with 45mm gun

For a new Belgian order the design was modified to use the Rolls-Royce Phantom II water-cooled engine instead. This engine would not fit in the rear, and had to be mounted along the left side of the tank, requiring the turret to be moved to the right and rearward. One example of the resulting Mark F was tested by Belgium, but rejected. Nevertheless the new hull was used, with the older engine, in the sales to Finland and Siam. The Mark E was also developed as a cargo vehicle, and purchased by the British Army in small numbers as artillery tractors to haul their large 60 pounder (127 mm) artillery guns. Twelve were ordered by the Army as the Dragon, Medium Mark IV, while China purchased 23 and India 18.

Poland was generally happy with the design, purchased 50 and licensed it for local production. Modifying it with larger air intakes, their own machine gun, 360-degree Gundlach periscope and a Diesel engine, the design entered service as the 7TP. Out of 38 original two-turreted tanks, 22 were later converted to single turret version with a modified turret and the 47 mm main gun (Type B standard). The Soviets were also happy with the design and licensed it for production. However in their case local production started as the T-26, and eventually over 12,000 were built in various versions. The Soviet early twin-turret T-26s had 7.62 mm DT machine guns in each turret, or a mix of one machine gun turret and one 37 mm gun turret. Later, more common versions mounted a 45 mm gun and two DT machine guns. The final versions of the T-26 had welded construction and, eventually, sloped armor on the hull and turret. Because the T-26 was in such wide use and was a reliable platform, a variety of engineer vehicles were built on the chassis, including flamethrowers and bridgelayers. A novel radio-controlled demolition tank was also built on the T-26 chassis.

During the Spanish Civil War the Soviet Union sent T-26 tanks to the Republican Army. The Italians, after suffering losses from Republican T-26's during the battle of Guadalajara (1937), captured some of these tanks which served as a model for their M11/39 and M13/40 light/medium tanks. In 1939, during the Soviet-Finnish Winter War, the Finnish armoured forces possessed a number of Vickers Armstrongs 6-ton tanks which had been fitted with 37 mm Bofors AT-guns. These, with captured Soviet T-26's, continued in Finnish service after the end of the Second World War. Some of these tanks were kept as training tanks until 1959, when they were finally phased out and replaced by newer Patria Oy-designed and built tanks.

Image
Finnish Vickers 6-Ton Type B. The Finns mated components of captured T-26s with their own Vickers tank.
ex Ngāti Tumatauenga ("Tribe of the Maori War God") aka the New Zealand Army


User avatar
CanKiwi2
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 26 Nov 2010, 16:48
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: What If-Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

#663

Post by CanKiwi2 » 13 Jul 2014, 13:55

Further British Tank Developments in the 1930's

The Cruiser Mk I (A9)

In 1936, the British War Office designated two different kinds of tanks for future development: heavily armoured infantry tanks to be used in close co-operation with infantry during attacks, and fast mobile cruiser tanks designed to make forays deep into enemy territory. In 1934, Sir John Carden of Vickers-Armstrong was asked to provide a "reasonably cheap tank" as a replacement for some of the mediums then in use. The pilot model of his design was finished in 1936 and given the designation A9E1. It incorporated the best features of the earlier Mk III Light Tank, and was powered by a commercial petrol engine. However, this was during the Great Depression and the tank had a number of cost-cutting measures applied. It was the first British tank to have a centrally located turret and to have powered traverse. The system was designed and built by Nash & Thompson and was similar to that being introduced on the Vickers Wellington bomber aircraft. The armour was light, with a maximum 14 mm thickness. Many armour faces were vertical, and there were numerous shot traps, but it could reach 25 mph and was armed with the new high velocity 2pdr gun.

Image
Cruiser Tank Mark 1, A9

As well as the turret armament, which consisted of a QF 2-pounder (40 mm) gun and a coaxial Vickers machine gun, there were two small turrets either side of the driver's compartment, each sporting one more machine-gun. Both these smaller turrets were permanently manned, which gave the tank a total crew of 6 (Commander, gunner, loader, driver and two machine-gunners).The driver's compartment and the fighting compartments were not separated. The A9 weighed 12 tons, was 5.8 metres long, 2.65 metres high, 2.5 metres wide, and had a top speed of 25 mph on road and 15 mph off. Its maximum road range was 150 miles. The ammunition load was 100 2-pounder rounds and a total of 3,000 rounds for the three Vickers machine guns.

Image
Cruiser Tank Mark 1, A9 – prototype

The A9E1 was tested against other designs and -although lacking in some areas - it was accepted in 1937 as an interim design until a Christie-suspension cruiser tank could be delivered. An order was placed for 125, with 75 built by Harland and Wolff, and the other 50 by Vickers. Originally, a Rolls-Royce car engine was used, but this proved underpowered and was replaced by an AEC bus engine. The later Valentine Infantry tank essentially used the same lower hull and suspension, though with considerably more armour. The Mark I cruiser began to be delivered in January 1939.

The Cruiser Mk II (A10)

The Cruiser, Mk II (A10) was developed alongside the Cruiser Mk I (A9), and was intended to be a heavier, infantry tank version of that type. In practice, it was not deemed suitable for the infantry tank role and was classified as a "heavy cruiser". The A10 was developed by Sir John Carden of Vickers in 1934 by adapting his A9 design. The A10 specification called for armour of up to 1 inch (25 mm) standard (the A9 was 14 mm); a speed of 10 mph (16.1 kmh) was considered acceptable. The two sub-turrets present on the A9 were removed, and extra armour bolted on top of that already present on the front and sides of the hull, along with all faces of the turret, providing approximately twice the armour in most areas. The A10 was two tonnes heavier than the A9, but used the same 150 bhp engine, and as a consequence the tank's top speed was cut from 25 mph (40.2 km/h) to 16 mph (24.1 km/h).

Image
British Cruiser Mark II Tank

The turret armament consisted of a QF 2-pounder (40mm) gun and a coaxial .303 Vickers machine gun. For the production version there was a 7.92 mm BESA machine gun mounted in the hull in a barbette to the right of the driver. This was added to give extra firepower but at the expense of simplicity - the Vickers and the BESA using different ammunition. The tank had a total crew of five (Commander, gunner, loader, driver and hull machine gunner), and there was no separation between the driver's compartment and the fighting compartments.

The prototype ("Tank, Experimental A10E1") was completed in 1936, a few months after the A9 prototype. Carden had died in an air crash in 1935 and development was slower than expected. In 1937, the A10 was dropped as an infantry support tank, but in 1938 it was decided to produce it as a "heavy cruiser". The A10 was accepted for service with production ordered in July 1938. Total production was 175 of the A10's; 45 were built by Birmingham Railway Carriage and Wagon Company, 45 by Metropolitan-Cammell and 10 by Vickers. In late 1939, another order was placed with the Birmingham Railway Carriage and Wagon Company, this time for a larger order of 75 vehicles which entered service in December 1939.

Classified as a 'heavy cruiser', 31 were sent to France with the 1st Armoured Division, but performed poorly their. They also served in the North African Campaign until late 1941 and were still being used at the defence of Tobruk where reliability and suspension performance in the desert conditions was praised. Sixty worn out examples were taken to Greece by the 3rd Royal Tank Regiment and, although they performed well against the German tanks, over 90% were lost due to mechanical breakdowns as opposed to enemy action (mainly lost tracks).

Image
British Cruiser Mark II Tank

The Cruiser Mk III (A13 Mk I)

The Cruiser Mk III, also known by its General Staff specification number A13 Mark I, was the first British cruiser tank to use the Christie suspension system, which gave higher speeds and better cross-country performance. Previous models of cruiser tanks used triple wheeled bogie suspension. Orders for the Mk I and Mk II Cruiser tanks had been restricted, since the British Army had decided to produce a more advanced and faster cruiser tank that would incorporate the Christie suspension designed by American inventor J. Walter Christie. Better armour was also wanted.
In 1936, General Martel, a pioneer in British tank design who had published works on armoured warfare and pioneered the lightly armoured "tankette" to enhance infantry mobility, became Assistant Director of Mechanization at the War Office. Later that year, Martel witnessed demonstrations of Soviet tank designs including the BT tank, which had been influenced by Christie's work. He urged the adoption of a tank that would use the suspension system and also follow Christie's practice of using a lightweight aircraft engine, such as the Liberty Engine. The government authorized the purchase and licensing of a Christie design via the Nuffield Organization rather than contacting the Soviet authorities.

Image
Cruiser Tank Mark 3, A13

The vehicle obtained from Christie became the basis of the Cruiser Mk III (A13). It was extensively redesigned by Morris Commercial Cars as it was too small and had several faults that Christie had not addressed. A new company Nuffield Mechanization & Aero Limited was formed for the development and production of the design. At a meeting of the General Staff, an official specification was determined. This included 30 mm (1.2 in) armour, a 2 pdr gun and a road speed of 30 mph. A subsequent review of the specification by Martel and Hobart approved 30mm armour all round provided cross-country speed could be kept at 25 mph. Pending the delivery of the A13, an interim design was approved - of the A7, A9 and A10, the A9 was selected.

The first prototype (the A13-E1) was delivered in 1937. Following the testing of the two prototypes, the A13 was ordered into production. The original order was for 50 tanks, however, 65 had been built by mid 1939. The Mk III weighed 14 long tons (14,200 kg) had a crew of 4, a 340 hp engine which gave a top speed of 30 mph (48 km/h) and was armed with a 2 pounder gun and a machine gun. Like most British cruisers, the A13 was fast but under-armoured and proved unreliable mechanically. Most were lost in the French campaign in 1940 (where they equipped units in the 1st Armoured Division), but a few were used in Greece and the North African campaign in 1940-41 (where they equipped units of the 7th Armoured Division).

Image
Cruiser Mark III A13

The Infantry Tank Mk I, Matilda I (A11)

The Infantry Tank Mk I, Matilda I (A11) was a British infantry tank (and of a completely different design to the Infantry Tank Mk II (A12), also known as the Matilda). The development of the design by Sir John Carden at Vickers-Armstrongs Ltd, began in 1935. The General Staff specification required a cheap tank, effectively requiring the use of commercially available components. It resulted in a small two-man vehicle with a low hull and a small cast turret. The turret was fitted with a single heavy machine gun, either a .303 Vickers machine gun or a larger, Vickers .50 machine gun.

Image
Infantry Tank Matilda Mk I

Designed for quick delivery as well as low cost, the A11 used many stock parts from other vehicles: a Ford V8 engine, a Fordson gearbox, a steering mechanism similar to the one used in Vickers light tanks, and suspension adapted from the Mk IV Dragon artillery tractor that was itself based on the Vickers 6-Ton Tank Model E. Although the hull and turret were well protected against contemporary anti-tank weapons, the tracks and running gear were completely exposed and more vulnerable than on tanks that had protected tracks. In addition, the lack of a gun with any anti-tank ability severely limited its utility on the battlefield. Besides operating the machine gun, the commander had to direct the driver and operate the wireless. There being no room in the turret for the wireless, it was placed in the hull and the commander had to duck down inside to operate it. The driver's position was equally cramped and the turret could not be traversed into a forwards position while the driver's hatch was open. The top speed of 8 mph (13 km/h) was thought to be sufficient for supporting an infantry advance.

The first order of 60 Matilda tanks was placed in April 1937, closely followed by an order for a further 60 ten days later and finally 19 were ordered in January 1939. The tank remained in production until August 1940, a total of one hundred and forty were produced, including the prototype, some of them with the heavier .50 inch Vickers machine gun instead of the .303 inch Vickers machine gun.

Image
Matilda Mk I, France. May 1940

Infantry Tank Mk II (Matilda II)

The first suggestion for a larger Infantry Tank was made in 1936, with specification A12 and contractor decided around the end of the year. The Infantry Tank Mk II was designed at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich to General Staff specification A.12 and built by the Vulcan Foundry. The design was based on the A7 (aka the Medium Mk III, which had started development in 1929) rather than on the Infantry Tank Mk I, which was a two-man tank with a single machine gun for armament. When war was recognised as imminent, production of the Matilda II was ordered and that of the Matilda I curtailed. The first order was placed shortly after trials were completed with 140 ordered from Vulcan Foundry in mid 1938.

Image
Matilda Mk II on railway car

The Matilda II weighed around 27 tons (27 tonnes or 60,000 lb) and was armed with a QF 2 pounder (40 mm) tank gun in a three-man turret. The turret traversed by hydraulic motor or by hand through 360 degrees; the gun itself could be elevated through an arc from -15[nb 2] to +20 degrees. One of the most serious weaknesses of the Matilda II was the lack of a high-explosive round for its main gun. A high-explosive shell was designed for the 2 pounder but for reasons never explained it was not placed in production. The tank's best weapon against un-armoured targets was thus its single machine gun.

Like many other British infantry tanks, it was heavily armoured; from 20 mm (0.79 in) at the thinnest it was 78 mm (3.1 in) at the front, much more than most contemporaries. The turret armour was 75 mm (3.0 in) all round, the hull side armour was 65 to 70 millimetres (2.6 to 2.8 in), and the rear armour, protecting the engine to sides and rear, was 55 millimetres (2.2 in). The frontal armour was 75 millimetres (3.0 in), although the nose plates top and bottom were thinner but angled. The turret roof was the same thickness as the hull roof and engine deck: 20 millimetres (0.79 in).

Image
Matilda Mk II Tank

The German Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks of the same period had 30 to 50 millimetres (1.2 to 2.0 in) thick hull armour. The shape of the nose armour was based on Christie's designs and came to a narrow point with storage lockers added on either side. The heavy armour of the Matilda's cast turret became legendary; for a time in 1940–41 the Matilda earned the nickname "Queen of the Desert". The sheer thickness of its armour made the tank impervious to the 37 mm and 50 mm calibre anti-tank guns that were then commonly used by the Germans, as well as the 47 mm used by the Italians in North Africa; only the 75 mm PaK 40 anti-tank gun — and as demonstrated as early as the Battle of France on May 21, 1940 from the counterattack at Arras, the 88 mm anti-aircraft gun — could penetrate its armour reliably.

While the Matilda possessed a degree of protection that was then unmatched in the North African theatre, the sheer weight of the armour mounted on the vehicle contributed to a very low average speed of about 6 mph (9.7 km/h) on desert terrain. At the time, this was not thought to be a problem since British infantry tank doctrine prioritized heavy armour and trench-crossing ability over speed and cross-country mobility (which was considered to be characteristic of cruiser tanks). The slow speed of the Matilda was further exacerbated by a troublesome suspension and a comparatively weak power unit, the latter of which was actually created using two bus engines linked to a single shaft. This arrangement was both complicated and time-consuming to maintain, as it required technician crews had to work on each engine separately and subjected automotive components to uneven wear-and-tear. It did however provide some mechanical redundancy, since failure in one engine would not prevent the Matilda from travelling under its own power using the other.

Image
Matilda Mk II Tank

The tank's suspension system was that which had been developed by Vickers for their Medium C prototype in the mid-1920s. The tank was carried by five double wheel bogies on each side. Four of the bogies were on bellcranks in pairs with a common horizontal coil spring. The fifth, rearmost, bogie was sprung against a hull bracket. Between the first bogie and the idler wheel was a larger diameter vertically sprung "jockey wheel". The first Matildas had return rollers; these were replaced in later models by track skids, which were far easier to manufacture and to service in the field. The turret carried the main armament with the machine gun to the right in a rotating internal mantlet. Traverse was by a hydraulic system. As the gun was balanced for ease of movement by the gunner much of the breech end was behind the trunnions. Two smoke grenade launchers were carried on the right side of the turret. The grenade launcher mechanisms were cut down Lee-Enfield rifles, each firing a single smoke grenade.

Image
Infantry Tank Matilda Mk II’s training

The first Matilda was produced in 1937 but only two were in service when war broke out in September 1939. Following the initial order from Vulcan Foundry, a second order was placed shortly after with Ruston & Hornsby. Some 2,987 tanks were produced by the Vulcan Foundry, John Fowler & Co. of Leeds, Ruston & Hornsby, and later by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway at Horwich Works; Harland and Wolff, and the North British Locomotive Company Glasgow. The last were delivered in August 1943. Peak production was 1,330 in 1942, the most common model being the Mark IV. The Matilda was also difficult to manufacture. For example, the pointed nose was a single casting that, upon initial release from the mould, was thicker than required in some areas. To avoid a needless addition to the tank's weight, the thick areas were ground away. This process required highly skilled workers and additional time. The complex suspension and multi-piece hull side coverings also added time to manufacturing

British Armoured Variants

The Birch Gun: As early as 1916, it had become evident that in the event of a breakthrough of the German lines, artillery would have great trouble following the advancing troops. Any successful offensive would therefore be in danger of stalling immediately. To solve this problem Major Gregg, an engineer working for the main tank producing company Metropolitan, Carriage, Wagon and Finance, proposed to build special mechanised artillery, using parts of the Mark I Tank. The production of a prototype was approved on 5 June 1916; the actual design began in July. The first prototype was ready to participate in the Tank Trials Day at Oldbury on 3 March 1917. An order of fifty vehicles was given to Kitson & Co. in Leeds. Deliveries to the army started in June and ended in July 1917.

Image
British Gun Carrier Mark I fitted with a 60-pounder gun

The vehicle bore little resemblance to the Mark I. The tracks weren’t tall but low, almost flat. At the back a rectangular superstructure covered the Daimler 105 hp engine together with the transmission of the Mark I, the latter now in a reversed position. Sharing it were the vehicle commander, a mechanic and two gearsmen. The original double tail wheel of the Mark I, intended to aid steering and attached to the rear of the vehicle, was retained. The front was an open area with either a 60-pounder (5-inch) field gun or a 6-inch howitzer. In July 1917 two Gun Carrier Companies were formed of 24 vehicles each. Probably none of them ever fired a shot in anger. As breakthroughs never materialised the vehicles were ultimately only used as supply tanks. It was calculated a single tank had the same carrying capacity as 291 human porters. There was a project for a Gun Carrier Mark II. Early in 1917 a wooden mock-up was made of an improved type, carrying the gun at the back. A real prototype was partly built, but never finished, the sole result of the project being that the original type is now known as the Gun Carrier Mark I. While this wasn’t a modern Self-Propelled Gun, it was likely the ancestor to today’s SPG’s and certainly had an influence on the design and development of the Birch Gun.

The Birch Gun was the world's first practical self-propelled artillery gun, built at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich in 1925. The gun was never highly regarded by the British High Command. Named after General Sir Noel Birch, who was Master General of Ordnance at the time, the Birch gun had real potential. It was built on a Vickers Medium Mark II tank chassis and mated originally with the QF 18 pdr (83.8 mm) gun and then with a 75 mm field gun. The 75mm was able to be fired either at ground targets or in the air-defence role, being given a much higher rate of elevation to be fired at enemy aircraft.

Image
Image of a Mark II Birch Gun in action during British Army manoeuvres, anywhere between July 1926 when they were issued, and June-July 1931, when they were withdrawn. Markings on the front hull plate indicate it is being manned by 20 Battery, 9th Field Brigade, Royal Artillery.

Image
Birch Gun variant – British medium tank Mk.II with 18pdr AA gun circa 1925

The Birch Gun weighed 11.9 tons, was 19 ft long, 7ft 10in wiude and 7 ft 7 in in height with a crew of 6. Powered by a single Armstrong Siddeley 8-cylinder 90hp petrol engine, speed was 28mph with a range of 119 miles. The initial prototype, the Mark I, made its first appearance in January 1925 and spent the next year undergoing trials and taking part in manoeuvres, mainly with 28 Battery, 9th Field Brigade, Royal Artillery. The lone Mark I was transferred to 20 Battery, 9th Field Brigade RA, who then took delivery of three Mark II Birch Guns in July 1926, followed by a fourth gun in September. This brought the battery strength to five guns, which participated in various field exercises as part of the Experimental Mechanised Force and it successor, the Experimental Armoured Force which was dispersed in February 1929. All five guns were finally withdrawn in June/July 1931, effectively ending the British Army's experiments with tracked self-propelled guns until the advent of various hurriedly improvised vehicles during the Second World War as the Sexton and the Deacon. Two Mark III Birch Guns were produced, but never issued to serving units. These had the guns mounted in revolving barbette-style turrets that increased crew protection but reduced the guns' elevation, so capping their effective range. Iincidentally, as we will see, all 7 Birch Guns were purchased by Finland in 1931 after they were withdrawn from British Army service.

Image
Two Mark III Birch Guns were produced, but never issued to serving units. These had the guns mounted in revolving barbette-style turrets that increased crew protection but reduced the guns’ elevation, so capping their effective range.

The armament for the original Birch Gun consisted of an Ordnance QF 18 pounder field gun (3.3 inch, 84 mm). This was changed to the 75 mm gun on the Birch gun Mk II and from then on was able to be fired either at ground targets or in the air-defence role, being given a much higher rate of elevation to be fired at enemy aircraft. The Armstrong Siddeley engine was modestly powerful. Being only 8 cylinders it could manage 90 hp for a mild 45 km/h top-speed. However, for its time (late 1920s) it was quite fast. The Birch gun was tested as part of the Experimental Mechanised Force in the 1920s. The Force undertook various experiments in mechanized warfare combining tanks and infantry with their own transport. The project was finally abandoned in 1928 after major political pressure cancelled all plans to complete the third version of this weapon.

For its time, the Birch Gun was a remarkable development. The gun could rotate a full 360 degrees, had a high arc and a large ammunition capacity. It was able to fire accurately while maintaining a good reload speed and it had a low profile, making it a difficult target. Weak points were the thin armour, low-powered engine, slow traverse and (in the Mk I and Mk II versions, the open top, making both the crew and the weapon vulnerable to counter fire (although the Mk III resolved this to a certain extent). Nevertheless, it was a remarkable development in the 1920′s and the failure of the British Army to continue with the development of this weapon would lead to hastily improvised Self-Propelled Guns entering service later in WW2.

The Dragon Artillery Tractor: As early as in 1928, there was a universal Vickers Medium Tractor designed on the Vickers 6-ton tank chassis. It was meant for both the military and civilian market. The British Army evaluated the tractor between 1930 and 1932, but finally rejected it. In 1934, Vickers developed an improved artillery tractor, powered by a stronger diesel engine. The British Army ordered 12 new tractors, with a designation: Dragon, Medium Mk.IV. They were given to one of heavy artillery regiments and used for towing 60-pdr guns (127 mm). In 1939, they were included in the British Expeditionary Force and sent to France, where they were seized by the Germans. A small series of these artillery tractors were exported: in 1932 one vehicle was bought by the German company Siemens-Schuckert, in 1933 Finland bought 20, in 1935 China bought 23 tractors and in 1937 India bought 18 tractors.

Image
Vickers Dragon Mark IV cargo vehicle

Image
Another photo of the Dragon Artillery Tractor

The Dragon Self-Propelled AA Gun: A self-propelled anti-aircraft gun variant was also developed (it was probably the first tracked armoured self-propelled AA gun in the world produced in series, although such guns had been mounted on a wheeled armoured chassis before). The vehicle had an open superstructure, with a single 40mm Vickers automatic AA gun ("pom-pom") mounted, with a rate of fire 120 rds/min. Siam ordered 26 of these vehicles while in 1932, Finland ordered 4 for evaluation purposes.

Image
The Dragon Self-propelled AA gun – a 40mm mounted on the Vickers Medium 6-ton tank chassis

The Universal Carrier

The origins of the Universal Carrier family can be traced back to the Carden Loyd tankette family which was developed in the 1920s, and specifically to the Mk VI tankette. In 1934 Vickers Armstrong produced, as a commercial venture, a light tracked vehicle that could be used either to carry a machine gun or to tow a light field gun. The Vickers-Armstrong D50 had an armoured box at the front for the driver and a gunner and bench seating at the back for the gun crew. It was considered by the War Office as a possible replacement for their "Dragon" artillery tractors and 69 were purchased as the "Light Dragon Mark III". One was built as the "Carrier, Machine-Gun Experimental (Armoured)" carrying a machine gun and its crew. The decision was made to drop the machine gun and its team and the next design had a crew of three – driver and gunner in the front, third crew-member on the left in the rear and the right rear open for stowage. A small number of this design were built as the "Carrier, Machine-Gun No 1 Mark 1" and entered service in 1936. Some were converted into pilot models for the Machine gun Carrier, Cavalry Carrier and Scout Carrier – the others were used for training.

Image
Universal Carrier Mk II

The carrier put the driver and commander at the front sitting side-by-side; the driver to the right. The engine was in the centre of the vehicle with the final drive at the rear. The suspension and running gear was based on that used on the Vickers light tank series using Horstmann springs. Directional control was through a (vertical) steering wheel. Small turns moved the front road wheel assembly warping the track so the vehicle drifted to that side. Further movement of the wheel braked the appropriate track to give a turn. The hull in front of the commander's position jutted forward to give room for the Bren gun (or other armament) to fire through a simple slit. To either side of the engine were two areas in which passengers could ride or in which stores could be carried.

Initially, there were several types of Carrier that varied slightly in design according to their purpose: "Medium Machine Gun Carrier" (the Vickers machine gun), "Bren Gun Carrier", "Scout Carrier" and "Cavalry Carrier". However, production of a single model came to be preferred and the Universal design appeared in 1940; this was the most widely produced of the Carriers. It differed from the previous models in having a rectangular body shape in rear section, with more space for crew.

Image
Universal Carrier Mk II layout

Production of these Carriers began as early as 1934 and only ended in 1960. Before the Universal design was introduced, the vehicles were produced by Aveling and Porter, Bedford Vehicles, the British branch of the Ford Motor Company, Morris Motors Limited, the Sentinel Waggon Works, and the Thornycroft company. With the introduction of the Universal, production in the UK was undertaken by Aveling-Barford, Ford, Sentinel, Thornycroft, and Wolseley Motors.

The British Army goes back to Proper Soldiering

As was mentioned, in 1923 the War Office closed down the Tank Design Department and Vickers were left as the sole repository of all tank design lore within Britain. The same year also saw the closing of the last National Factory that the Ministry of Munitions had set up during the Great War. Within the UK, all that remained in the way of State armament institutions were the Woolwich Arsenal, the small-arms factory at Enfield Lock and the Waltham Gunpowder Works. Only Woolwich mattered to those concerned with tanks and it had very little to offer. By 1933, it had a payroll of 7,000 (as against 65,000 in 1918) and most of those were working on orders for the British Admiralty, with no spare capacity to waste on unwanted armoured vehicles.

Image
Woolwich Arsenal – only Woolwich mattered to those concerned with tanks and it had very little to offer. By 1933, it had a payroll of 7,000 (as against 65,000 in 1918) and most of those were working on orders for the British Admiralty

Though the British Army now had a new tank (and would develop more through the 1930's), after the death of the Experimental Mechanised Force there was no further coherent attempt to digest the lessons of the Great War. Many ideas were bandied about on paper regarding the future shape of war but there was an air of unreality about them. Two schools of thought contended, one of them insisting that wholly armoured formations were the shape of things to come, the other that a judicious mixture of all-arms would be more likely to prevail. The oddest circumstance is that nobody seems to have given any thought to the ways in which tanks might be killed.

This may have been comprehensible during the early years after WW1 when only the Allies possessed such a weapon, but even later on and closer to the outbreak of WW2, the necessity for anti-tank guns was still dismissed. The makeshift mines of 1918 had been surprisingly effective, but no mines were made by Britain, nor were there designs for any. Even the feeble 2 and 3-pdrs were begrudged the Tank Corps. Tanks existed to shoot up the enemy infantry and for that the machinegun would do perfectly well. Tank-smashing could safely be left to the 18-pdr field gun, even thought it was pulled by horses and still ran on iron-rimmed wheels. The Royal Air Force, a separate race of men, had no interest in the matter.

However, despite the Tank enthusiasts, the British Army in the aftermath of WW1 had lost interest. The Cavalry Generals (and there were many of them) denied recent experience and continued to extol the power of the well-bred horse. Their one aim seemed to be to get the Army back to the lost standards of 1914, albeit with a few more guns and machineguns. Colonel Phillip Neame, a Staff College Instructor between 1921 and 1923 tried to introduce tanks and armoured warfare into the curriculum. Nobody listened. In 1924 at Aldershot he tried to introduce them into a large-scale exercise and was brusquely told by his Divisional Commander to stop it. In 1925 had come a new Dawn. It proved to be false, but for a brief period hope had shone brightly for the armoured warfare advocates.

Image
Colonel Phillip Neame, a Staff College Instructor between 1921 and 1923 tried to introduce tanks and armoured warfare into the curriculum.

General Sir Noel Birch was both the Army's top gunner and a famous horseman – he was also one of the few senior officers who looked more than a week or two ahead. In 1925, Birch was Master-General of the Ordnance and in a position of power. He promptly ordered the construction of a self-propelled artillery weapon made up from the chassis of a Vickers Medium tank and an 18-pdr field gun mounted on a platform. It was an excellent piece of equipment, better even than the gun-carrying tank of 1916 that had never been used. However, the Artillery would kill the Birch gun and forever after looked distrustfully on the designer. Birch left the Army shortly afterwards and became a director at Vickers.

Image
Sir (James Frederick) Noel Birch, 1919

All the same, the world was slowly becoming more tank-minded. In 1928, the Soviet Union came out with a new Five Year Plan in which, for the first time, tanks were given a place of prominence. The French Army was working on designs which would become the Souma and the Char B. But in the late 1920's, the Great Depression was about to start, the British Army's Experimental Armoured Force was disbanded and life in Aldershot returned to something approximating the pre-war era. Kipling's "The Army of a Dream" had come again.

Next: French Tanks of the 1920's and 1930's
ex Ngāti Tumatauenga ("Tribe of the Maori War God") aka the New Zealand Army

User avatar
CanKiwi2
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 26 Nov 2010, 16:48
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: What If-Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

#664

Post by CanKiwi2 » 13 Jul 2014, 13:59

Wondered if anyone had come across any information on the usefulness or otherwise of Renault FT 17 tanks as machinegun pillboxes? Here's the draft, but I'm wondering if these would be as successful as I've written them up to be?

November 1938: 350 Renault FT17 tanks were purchased from France

In late 1938, 350 Renault FT17 tanks were purchased from France. Taken from French stockpiles, these were purchased second hand. There intended use was as improvised bunkers, to be dug into the ground hull-down with only the turret protruding, stripped of engines and any other superflous materials (including tracks, bogies, etc). The plan was to further protect them with concrete or layers of logs and earth, leaving clear fields of fire and permitting the Finnish infantry to use them as observation posts and machinegun bunkers for boosting their defensive firepower on the defensive lines across the Isthmus.

It was a deal that suited both parties. While the French had large numbers of Renault FT 17's stockpiled, many were in very poor condition. The Finns on the other hand, while not stating this to the French, were not interested in the running condition of the FT 17's. The French offloaded what they considered to be more or less junk for a reasonable price while the Finns got 350 pillboxes. Shipped to Finland, arriving in the midst of Spring in 1939, the old FT 17's were stripped of anything useful, had exit hatches cut into the rear, were modified to allow the quick installation of the Finnish heavy machineguns, the Maxims. They were also fitted with provision for a Nokia radio as well as usually having a rudimentary bunker at the rear for sleeping and eating.

Thus modified, they were railed and trucked to the Isthmus where they were installed in pre-selected positions where it was considered that they would add strength to the defensive positions. With front hatches welded shut, the hulls well dug in and covered with either concrete (rare) or layers of logs and earth, the turrets offered a small and next to invisible target. The two-man machinegun crews had an avenue of escape out the rear, usually through a small tunnel or trench taking them to a fallback position from which they could safely escape to the next defensive line. The FT-17 pillboxes were usually positioned in strategically placed small and mutually covering groups together with entrenched infantry and anti-tank gun positions.

Their armoured turrets were small enough that only a direct hit would immobilise them while shell and grenade fragments generally would not penetrate. A direct hit from plunging artillery fire would of course destroy them, as would a direct hit on the turret, but dug in and well-concealed as they were, they made a difficult target to spot from a distance, let alone to hit. Fitted with Maxim machineguns (which could be removed when the crews fell-back, they could generally maintain a continuous fire through any attack mounted by the Red Army. Well-stocked with ammunition, when suitably positioned and coordinated with infantry and anti-tank guns (and fitted with radios from which they could call in artillery fire), theses 350 Renault FT 17's were a useful augmentation to Finland's defences on the Karelian Isthmus and one which would cost the Red Army dearly time and time again.

Image
an FT-17 turret dug in on a Karelian roadside.....
ex Ngāti Tumatauenga ("Tribe of the Maori War God") aka the New Zealand Army

User avatar
Karelia
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 28 May 2012, 15:55
Location: Pohojanmaa, Finland

Re: What If-Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

#665

Post by Karelia » 13 Jul 2014, 14:30

Fascinating!

You do know, that Nokia was a manufacturer of rubber and wood products, as well as telephone and telegraph cables only at the time of war(s)? Electronics department was not founded until 1960.

User avatar
CanKiwi2
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 26 Nov 2010, 16:48
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: What If-Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

#666

Post by CanKiwi2 » 13 Jul 2014, 16:46

Karelia wrote:Fascinating!

You do know, that Nokia was a manufacturer of rubber and wood products, as well as telephone and telegraph cables only at the time of war(s)? Electronics department was not founded until 1960.
In this alternative history, Nokia is formed rather earlier (see this post)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1645573 and here
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1645844

History of radios (and a few other developments) from Nokia in the 1930's starts around here....

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1639293 and also involves Eric Tigerstedt (an act of necromancy but he was ideal for the part, and given that its an alternative history, a little butterfly is minor in the greater scheme of things).

Anyhow, happy you're enjoying. Much more on tanks to come as I waffle through the evolution of the Finnish Army's armoured formations, their equipment, formations and doctrine and much more :thumbsup:

(not forgetting of course that I still have a few more posts on those darn foreign volunteers to wrap up, not the least of them the Japanese....)
ex Ngāti Tumatauenga ("Tribe of the Maori War God") aka the New Zealand Army

User avatar
John Hilly
Member
Posts: 2618
Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:33
Location: Tampere, Finland, EU

Re: What If-Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

#667

Post by John Hilly » 15 Jul 2014, 22:37

Vickers Light Tank Mk IV – somewhere tropical – India perhaps?
I'd say Middle East. Those trees, either Olive- or Eucalyptus trees, make me feel familiar with my days in the Golan Heights. Long, long time ago... :wink:

With best,
J-P :milwink:
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"

Stepper
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 27 Jul 2012, 14:50

Re: What If-Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

#668

Post by Stepper » 02 Oct 2014, 13:07

Excellent series of write-ups!

Who can tell me what the "J" stands for in the Finnish comm equipment designator "VRJP"?

This is a mobile VHF transceiver of type DR38A/FR38A, made by Philips-NSF (hence the "P" in "VRJP"). Presumably it was used by the Finnish navy...

Thanks in advance!

User avatar
CanKiwi2
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 26 Nov 2010, 16:48
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: What If-Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

#669

Post by CanKiwi2 » 09 Oct 2014, 18:49

Not so much an update as a chuckle. You may recall from a while ago I did a Post on "Aid from Canada" and the MSK Truck (Maavoimat Sotilaallinen Kuvio – “Maavoimat Military Pattern”). Well, that Post is also up on my own Blog and this was the latest comment..... (contact details removed, but if you feel you can supply them with MSK trucks, I'll be happy to provide them to you.....)

Sub : Inquiry of Truck (Military version)
Dear Sir/Madam,
We have an urgent inquiry for above item. If you able to supply us than reply by return mail. So that I will send you the specification.

Thanks & Regards,
KH. MD. TAIB
(Chief Advisor)
Mahi International
(Contact Details deleted)


Love it. Just love it. I guess the military equipment market in the Middle East is heating up when an alternative history websites start getting queries like this. I think I’m going to start advertising those pigeon-guided glider bombs as well. There may be a real market. Marcus may be on to a winner for the forum if he starts taking commissions.....

LOL…………..Nigel
ex Ngāti Tumatauenga ("Tribe of the Maori War God") aka the New Zealand Army

User avatar
CanKiwi2
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 26 Nov 2010, 16:48
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

French Tanks of the Interwar Decades

#670

Post by CanKiwi2 » 23 Oct 2014, 18:23

As with Britian, French tank design entered a period of hiatus through the 1920’s. Nevertheless, the French Tanks of the Interwar Decades were as good as any designed and built elsewhere in the world, and one in particular, the Souma S35, was perhaps the best tank available anywhere in 1939. In this Post, we’ll walk through French Tanks as of the end of World War One, and then take a look at the French Tanks of the Interwar Decades.

Please note: here and there within this post are snippets of alternative history related to Finland. Any mention of French tanks in use in Finland is fictional, although the remainder of the content is historically accurate. Also, I’ve left out French tank models that were only produced in small numbers or as prototypes.

The French Tanks of World War One

During World War One, France too developed its own tracked Armoured Fighting Vehicles at about the same time as Britain, but the situation there was rather different to Britain’s. In Britain a single committee had coordinated design, and had to overcome the initial resistance of the Army, while the major industries remained passive. Almost all production effort was thus concentrated into the Mark I and its direct successors, all very similar in shape. In France, on the other hand, there were multiple and conflicting lines of development which resulted in three quite disparate production types. The two original French tank designs, the St-Chamond and the Schneider-CA, proved to be flawed. The last of the three, the Renault-FT, pioneered the classic tank configuration which has remained the basis of tank design up to today.

The Renault FT-17 was the first tank to incorporate a top-mounted turret with full 360º traverse capability and was designed with a layout that has been followed by almost all designs ever since: driver at the front; main armament in a fully rotating turret on top; engine at the rear. Previous tank models had been “box tanks”; a single crowded space combining the engine room, fighting compartment, ammunition stock and driver’s cabin. The FT would have the largest production run of any tank of WW1, with over 3,700 built, more numerous than all British tanks combined.

ImageSourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... _FT-17.jpg
The Renault FT-17 – the WW1 tank that pioneered the classic tank configuration which has remained the basis of tank design up to today

The Renault FT-17 has already been covered in some detail – suffice it to reiterate that the large fleet of Renault FT-17 tanks with which the French Army ended WW1 would remain the mainstay of the French armoured forces through to the mid-1930’s, when they began to be rapidly replaced with a mixed force of light tanks across both the Infantry and Cavalry branches of the Army, as well as with medium and heavy tanks. The Infantry light tanks included the Renault R 35 (which followed the FT 17 concept closely with its small size, two-man crew and short 37 mm gun armament. albeit heavily armored). The cavalry had the similar Hotchkiss H 35, armed with the same 37 mm gun, as well as light recon tanks such as the AMR 35.

France also produced arguably the best tank of the 1930’s, the SOMUA S35. This tank equipped the armoured divisions of the Cavalry and was probably the best combination of armour, firepower and mobility prior to the appearance of the German PzKpfw IV Ausf. F2 and the Soviet T-34. The SOUMA S35 had a long 47 mm gun that could kill any tank then in service, as well as heavy cast armour and good speed. The French Char B main battle tank was also a formidable heavy tank, with cast and riveted armour, the same long 47 mm gun as the S 35, and in addition a hull-mounted 75 mm howitzer. All Char Bs were equipped with radios and the tank was nearly invulnerable to most tank guns and towed antitank guns.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 5_tank.jpg
Arguably the best tank of the 1930’s, the SOMUA S35

In general, French tanks of the 1930s were well-armoured, innovative vehicles that owed little to foreign designs. However, the light tanks lacked firepower and almost all French tanks were crippled by their one-man turrets. Even the vaunted Char B had a commander who was tasked with commanding the vehicle as well as loading and aiming the turret gun. If he were a platoon leader or company commander, he had the additional tasks of controlling his other units. Such a heavy set of tasks was overwhelming, greatly reducing the effectiveness of the tanks.

The lack of radios for the light tanks was not seen as a major drawback, since French doctrine called for slow-paced, deliberate manoeuvers in close conformance to plans: the “Methodical Battle” concept, adopted because wargaming showed it to be superior. The role of small unit leaders was to execute plans, not to take the initiative in combat. This was nearly the opposite of German doctrine, which stressed initiative and decision-making at low command levels (Auftragstaktik). In 1939 a belated effort was made to improve flexibility and increase the number of radios but overall the French general staff failed in defining an effective military doctrine regarding the use of tanks.

In the post, I’ll look more or less briefly at those French tanks in service in 1919 followed by an overview of French tanks from 1919 through to the outbreak of WW2, with an emphasis on those tanks that were produced in reasonably large numbers and thus potentially available for export.

The Char Schneider CA

Schneider, a major French arms producer, took the lead in French tank design and in December 1915 demonstrated a prototype tank based on a Baby Holt tractor to the French Army. Among the onlookers was Colonel Jean Baptiste Eugène Estienne — an artilleryman and engineer held in high regard throughout the French army for his technical and tactical expertise. On 12 December 1915 Col. Estienne presented to the High Command a plan for the creation of an armoured force; strong French Army support for tanks would be a constant during the decades to come. For Estienne, the Schneider prototype demonstrated the practicality of using tracked armoured vehicles to move infantry, equipment and cannon over the battlefield.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... tienne.jpg
Général Jean-Baptiste Estienne

Although Schneider’s project had been underway prior to Estienne’s involvement, Estienne’s played a decisive rôle in getting the Schneider tank into production (although actual completion was entrusted to a ministerial bureau headed by General Léon Augustin Jean Marie Mourret, director of the Army automobile service. Mourret did not closely cooperate with Estienne, who was largely excluded from decisions of a technical nature). In February 1916 successful tests were held and the War Ministry ordered the production of four hundred tracteurs-chenilles type Schneider & Cie blindés (“tracked and armoured tractors of the Schneider type”), at a price of 56,000 French francs per vehicle.

To the modern eye, the Schneider CA tank is barely recognizable as a tank, looking much more like an armoured steel box resting on top of a caterpillar tractor. It has no turret, and its inconspicuous main armament is a fortification 75 mm Blockhaus Schneider, placed in a barbette in the right front corner of the tank. The right side had been chosen because the gunner had to stand to the left of the barrel to operate the gun. The cannon type was developed from a 75 mm trench mortar adapted to fire from a fixed fortification position by adding a recoil compensator and a gun shield. This short-barrelled cannon had a length of just 9.5 calibres and fired the standard French HE Model 1915 75 mm shell with a reduced propelling charge, shortening the length of the round from 350 to 241 millimetres and giving a muzzle velocity of only two hundred metres per second.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... -CA-01.jpg
Schneider CA Tank

While this limited the maximum range to 2,200 metres, the practical range was only 600 metres and the tank needed to close within 200 metres of a target to allow for precision shooting. The gun had a traverse of 60°, a depression of -10° and an elevation of 30°. The ammunition stock was 90 vertically stowed rounds. To the right of the cannon there is a bin for 20 readily accessible 75 mm rounds. Three other ammunition bins were positioned respectively at the extreme right rear corner (14), to the left of the engine (32) and at the left rear corner (24). Two 8 mm Hotchkiss Model 1914 machine guns projected from the flanks in large hemispherical ballmounts. The right machine gun was, because of the room needed for the main gun, positioned more to the rear than the left one. The machine guns could traverse 106°, had a depression of -45° and an elevation of 20°. A bin at the extreme left corner held 4,000 rounds of 8 mm ammunition but in practice fifty belts with ninety-six rounds each were carried, for a total of 4800 rounds.

Another unusual feature is the slanted overhang of the frontal part of the chassis which has the form of a pointed nose, ending in a high obliquely protruding steel spur. It had been designed for cutting through and crushing down German barbed wire, thus opening passages for following French infantry, originally seen as the primary function of the Schneider CA. This long overhang caused the tank to ditch itself readily. The design is of the so-called “box tank” type, in which the crew, propulsion system and all manner of equipment were not clearly separated. As a result there is no real fighting compartment. The space available to the crew, illuminated by three small electric lights, was entered through a double door at the back of the tank and is extremely cramped. The crew consisted of a commanding officer who was also the driver; an NCO who was the main gunner, two machine gunners, a loader who assisted with both the cannon and the machine guns and a mechanic who doubled as a machine gun loader.

Four of these six men had to crouch inside a 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) high space between the roof and the tank’s floor. They then had to stand within two narrow troughs, one, behind the driver’s seat, used by the gunner and a second square one more to the back, between the suspension elements, used by the cannon loader and the two machine gunners. Most of the space however, had a height of just three feet between the roof and the covering of transmission and suspension: if the mechanic wanted to assist the right machine gun, he had to lie on his belly to load it. Each Schneider tank team also included three riflemen who functioned as and outside crew; during battle they accompanied the vehicle. All-around protection was provided by 11.4 mm steel plate, later improved by a spaced armour of 5.4/5.5 mm, raising the weight from 12.5 to 13.5 tonnes. The roof had 5.5 mm armour. The plates are partly riveted; the superstructure is largely bolted.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... ieur_3.jpg
Space was confined within the interior of the Schneider CA-1

The 60 hp Schneider gasoline engine and its radiator were located in the front part of the tank, to the immediate left of the driver. The four cylinder engine was specially constructed for the Schneider CA with a maximum output of sixty horsepower at 1,000 rpm. The tank’s official top speed was only 8.1 km/h and the practical terrain speed was even lower at 2 to 4 km/h. Two fuel gravity-feed reservoirs placed above the engine below the right front roof and nose plate had a total capacity of 145 litres, giving a practical range of about 50 kilometres, though the official range was 80 kilometres. Steering was generally very tiring and there was a tendency to jump out of gear when the clutch was engaged too forcefully.

As the traverse of the main gun was limited, it had first to be pointed in the general direction of the target by the driver-commander swivelling the entire vehicle. To facilitate this, a small rectangular frame is fitted on the right side of the nose of the tank. Looking through it, the driver had a sightline parallel to that of the cannon in a neutral position. In practice, the commander had a too limited view of his surroundings through the small hatches to his left, front and right and had to resort to lifting his head out of his rectangular top hatch to observe the enemy. Small rectangular hatches, fitted with a vision slit, were positioned to the front of each machine-gun. The main ventilation was provided by a large skylight slit running along the midline of the hull. It is doubly roofed with the lower roof having a second slit in its top, while the higher roof has open lower sides, creating oblique oblong ventilation channels through which fresh air can be sucked in from the outside. The top roof is the highest element of the vehicle. With later production vehicles, polluted air was removed through a broad ventilation grid in the nose, having a recessed armour plate below it. To the left and the right of the skylight roof rectangular escape hatches are present in the hull top.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 1-rail.jpg
Schneider tanks, here with the later cross-hatched camouflage, were mostly transported by rail

Schneider CA’s in Battle

By January 1917, 32 Schenider’s had been delivered from the order of 400 for which delivery had been contracted to for November 1916. By January 1917 production had picked up to 3 to 4 units per day and by 1 June, 322 Schenider tanks had been delivered. During production, the Schneider’s design was gradually and progressively improved, which caused further delays. Starting from July 1916, tank crews began to be trained, many of these men were volunteers. Their first instruction consisting of the basics of maintenance and a lot of driver training with an emphasis on crossing trenches, avoiding shell craters and running down trees and walls. Because at first no actual Schneider vehicles were available, Holt tractors were used instead. The training camps that were set up included tank workshops and 64 Schneiders were allocated purerly for training purposes and to limit the wear on combat vehicles.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... ca1-02.jpg
Char d’assaut Schneider C.A.1

The French Army did not intend to create an independent tank force; the tank units would be part of the Artillery Arm. Each group consisted of four batteries, each battery again of four tanks. This would have resulted in a total of sixteen tanks and indeed this was the official organic strength of an AS, but the fourth battery was normally a depot unit, intended to provide replacement vehicles and crews for the other three batteries. It had an official allotment of three tanks and the total matériel strength of an AS was thus fifteen. Actual operational strength varied wildly, due to frequent breakdowns. The personnel strength consisted of twelve officers — each commanding a tank of the three regular batteries — sixteen NCOs and 110 men of lower rank. In practice often four batteries of three tanks were fielded, to allow for a greater tactical flexibility.

Estienne had hoped to create a powerful and large striking force before committing his tanks to battle. He had strongly disapproved of the, in his eyes premature, British use of tanks in September 1916, just two months after first deliveries of the Mark I. However, political circumstances would compel him to deploy the Artillerie Spéciale before it was at full strength or adequately trained. On the morning of 16 April 1917 the Nivelle Offensive was launched with a heavy commitment of Schneider tanks, with Berry-au-Bac being their first major engagement. The Schneiders penetrated several miles but lost their accompanying infantry and had their numbers whittled down before withdrawing, in the process of which they suffered further losses from artillery fire. Their losses were heavy: 76 of the 128 combat tanks engaged had been lost and many of those lost had burned.

Image
Sourced fom: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... au-bac.jpg
One of the Schneider CA-1 tanks destroyed at Berry-au-Bac

Despite the general failure of the Nivelle Offensive and the ensuing mutinies, the French High Command attempted another offensive in May 1917 at Moulin-de-Laffaux. Tanks were again used, this time in conjunction with an infantry battalion specially trained in combined arms tactics, the 17e Bataillon de Chasseurs à Pied. Coordination with the artillery was improved by attaching a special observation plane, protected by six SPAD VII fighters, whose task was to identify German antitank-batteries and have them destroyed by counterbattery fire; it also had to report the position of the tanks to higher command levels.

ImageSourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... Troops.jpg
Crew posing with their Schneider Tank

While most of the attacks of the offensive were failures, the tank attack on Moulin-de-Laffaux largely attained its objectives. The Schneiders, advancing not in column but “line abreast”, exploited the initial infantry conquest of the first trench by crossing the second and then assisted the foot soldiers in heavy and fluid battles with counterattacking German reserves. Eventually most tanks broke down and had to be left behind by the advancing infantry. The Schneiders had made a good account of themselves. Of thirty-three tanks engaged only five were destroyed. Here we can see the early evolution of modern combined arms warfare, driven by practical lessons rather than theory.

The French High Command considered launching a large-scale summer offensives in 1918, benefiting from a grown number of AFVs. At this point of the war, less than a year after their first employment, the Schneider tanks were already considered obsolete. They nevertheless still formed an essential part of the French tank force with 245 operational in March 1918 and they continued to be used in the ongoing fighting as the German offensives of 1918 were held. By August 1918 only 50 Schneiders were operational, with losses not being replaced.

Schneider CA’s after the First World War

Even before the end of the war, on 6 October 1918 Estienne had proposed to phase out all Schneider tanks from operational units, remove their armament and deploy them as instruction and recovery vehicles. By the end of 1918, all surviving Schneider tanks had been designated utility vehicles. Some of the serviceable Schneiders were rebuilt as recovery vehicles and tank transporters serving with Renault FT units. Some Schneider’s also found their way into the Italian Army in the summer of 1918 and to Spain in 1921 where they fought in the Rif War, as part of a joint French-Spanish effort to subdue the self-declared Rif Republic. They reached Morocco on 28 February 1922 and in September 1925 they took part in the large scale amphibious landings in the bay of Al Hoceima. The Schneider tanks saw action until May 1926, returning to Spain in 1929, not having lost a single vehicle. In Spain, due to their poor mechanical state, they were delegated to a reserve status and used as training and instruction vehicles.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... neider.jpg
A single Spanish Republican Schneider CA-1 was used against the Alcazar in Toledo

On the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, one unit remained under Republican command, while the second took the side of the Nationalists. The Madrid vehicles saw some action during the bloody attacks on the Cuartel de la Montaña, the main military barracks of the capital. Some of the tanks were manned by militia members of the Unión General de Trabajadores and the Unión de Hermanos Proletarios. Probably all Schneider tanks became inoperational during 1936.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... Saumur.jpg
The last surviving Schneider CA-1 is on display at the Musée des Blindés in Saumur.

The only surviving example of the Schneider CA is found at the Musée des Blindés in Saumur, and this is also the world’s oldest tank in full running condition. It was donated at the end of WW1 by the French government to the United States of America, was preserved in the Aberdeen Proving Ground Ordnance Museum in Maryland, USA and in 1985 was donated back to France for restoration. The tank’s original four cylinder Schneider gasoline engine and the original transmissions were fully restored to original working condition by the repair teams at the Musée des Blindés.

The Saint-Chamond Tank

The Saint-Chamond was the second French heavy tank of WW1, with some 400 manufactured between April 1917 and July 1918. The Saint-Chamond proved to be an underpowered and fundamentally inadequate design. Its principal weakness was the “caterpillar” tracks, which were far too short in relation to the vehicle’s length and heavy weight (23 tons). Later models attempted to rectify some of the tank’s original flaws by installing wider and stronger track shoes, thicker frontal armor and installing a more effective 75mm Mle 1897 field gun. The Saint-Chamond tanks remained engaged in action until late summer 1918, belatedly becoming more effective as combat moved out of the trenches and onto open ground. Eventually, however, the Saint-Chamond tanks were scheduled to be entirely replaced by the newer model British-designed heavy tanks.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... H-1906.jpg
Ateliers des Aciéries de la Marine, avant 1906

The origins of the St Chamond lay in commercial rivalry between the the arms manufacturer Forges et Aciéries de la Marine et d’Homécourt aka “FAMH” and Schneider. FAMH was given an order for 400 tanks by the French government and intended to build a tank that would be similar to the Schneider. However, Eugène Brillié, the designer of the Schneider tank, refused to share his patents for free and FAMH refused to pay. Unable to replicate certain patented details of the new Schneider tank, FAMH developed its own proprietary design: the “Char Saint-Chamond”. This also gave Saint-Chamond what they consider to be the opportunity to upstage Schneider. They did this by installing a more powerful, full size 75mm field gun plus 4 Hotchkiss machine guns (instead of the 2 machine guns of the Schneider tank).

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... actory.jpg
Saint-Chamond Tanks under construction in the factory

When Colonel Estienne learned that an order for 400 Saint-Chamond tanks had been placed in April 1916, he was at first elated. When it became apparent that they would be of a completely different type, Estienne was shocked and wrote: “I am painfully surprised that an order of this importance has been placed without asking the opinion of the only officer who, at the time, has undertaken a profound study of the technical and military aspects involved and who had brought the supreme commander to the decision to take this path [towards a tank arm].”

The new tank was a cumbersome and underpowered vehicle. It had a large overhanging front compartment with the 75 mm gun protruding from the nose. Within the forward fighting compartment and on the left was the driver, who was also the vehicle commander. On the right, a machine gunner operated the front Hotchkiss machine gun. This machine gunner was also responsible for the breech operation of the 75mm gun, a task he performed after pivoting on his seat to the left. A loader (referred to in some sources as the gunner) adjusted the gun’s elevation, observing the target through a small hatch in the front of the tank, which left him vulnerable to enemy fire. Traversing the 75mm gun required traversing the whole tank, a task performed by the driver. A second fighting compartment at the back held one machine gunner next to the secondary driver’s position, from where the tank could also be driven backwards by the mechanic in an emergency.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... gunner.jpg
Gunner positions in the St-Chamond WWI tank. You can see just how poorly the side machine gun positions were thought out. The gunner has to crouch down in an awkward position. His shin is inches from a sharp corner of the arch over the tracks. The heat and noise from the engine, located a foot or two away, must have been unbearable.

Between those two compartments the gasoline engine and the electric generator were positioned in the open. Narrow passageways on both sides of the engine connected the front and rear compartments. The passageways also held Hotchkiss positions, one on each side in front of the engine. The Saint-Chamond had 4 Hotchkiss M1914 machine gun positions: one at the front, one at the back and one on each side of the tank. Despite weighing 23 tons, the tank could manage a top speed of 12 km/h. This speed was seldom achieved in the field as the long nose was prone to dig into the ground. The relatively high maximum speed on flat ground was made possible by the “Crochat Collardeau” transmission which coupled a Panhard-Levassor 4 cylinders 90HP sleeve-valve gasoline engine to an electric generator. The generator was connected to two separate electric motors, one for each track.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... trench.jpg
Due to its short tracks and over-extended body, the vehicle experienced major difficulties in crossing trenches and overcoming obstacles.

Due to its short tracks and over-extended body, the vehicle experienced major difficulties in crossing trenches and overcoming obstacles. This led to such a negative reaction by the crews in training that a special mention was passed on to General Headquarters: Nobody wanted to serve on the Saint-Chamond. Second Lieutenant de Gouyon, principal Saint-Chamond driving instructor at Marly, publicly declared that it had become virtually impossible for him to continue and, since he was a Member of Parliament, he requested that the whole matter be placed on the next parliamentary agenda.

The Improved Saint-Chamond tanks of 1918

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... t-1918.jpg
The Saint-Chamond was the second French heavy tank of the First World War. Born of the commercial rivalry with the makers of the Schneider CA1, the Saint-Chamond was an inadequate design. Four hundred Saint-Chamond tanks were manufactured but most of them were destroyed in action.

Originally the crew of nine men was protected by 11 mm of steel armour on the sloping front and 17mm on the sides. An extra layer of spaced 8.5 mm armour was added to the front to improve protection. Beginning with the 151st tank, the roof was also redesigned with a double slope so that satchel charges and grenades would slide off. At the same time, the original two observation turrets in front and on top were done away with and replaced by a single low profile square turret permitting front and side vision by the tank’s driver/commander. The tracks were also widened from 324 mm to 412 mm to lower their ground pressure. After Saint-Chamond tank No 210 the more effective Model 1897 field gun was installed instead of Rimailho’s (profitable) 75mm Saint-Chamond gun.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... damage.jpg
Battle-damaged Saint Chamond. Note the badly damaged roof.

At about the same time barrel-like rollers were added underneath the front and rear of the tank to help crossing trenches. This improved version was later called, unofficially, the Modèle 18. Production slowed down in March 1918, after 377 had been assembled, and ceased completely in July 1918. Initially, forty eight Saint-Chamond tanks were modified as supply and recovery vehicles that could tow the lighter Schneider tanks. Their first action as a fighting vehicle took place at Laffaux Mill on May 5, 1917. During the summer of 1918, as combat moved from the trenches into the open, the Saint-Chamond’s were used to engage German field gun batteries (Nahkampfbatterien) at a distance with their 75mm cannon. The Saint-Chamond proved reasonably effective in this specialist assault gun role. The Saint-Chamond’s final engagement in battle took place in early October 1918, in support of the U.S. First Division near Montfaucon. However, by that time, the Renault FT tank had successfully taken over the major role in the French tank force and had also been purchased by the American Expeditionary Forces in France. After the war 54 were rebuilt as ammunition carriers. The remainder were scrapped.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... arrier.jpg
Saint Chamond ammunition carrier (early)

The last Saint-Chamond tank remaining in existence ( an improved mid-1918 model ), alongside other French tanks of World War I (Schneider CA1 and Renault FT), is preserved at the Musée des Blindés at Saumur, France. It survived, together with a Schneider CA1 tank of the same vintage, at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds Ordnance Museum in Maryland, USA, and was later donated by the U.S. to the French government. Although very well preserved at the Musee des Blindes, this unique Saint-Chamond tank could not be fully restored due to the irreversibly degraded conditions of the two electric motors and of the electric generator.

Industrial Rivalry

Industrial rivalry had played a detrimental role in the design of French Tanks. The heavy Char St Chamond emerged from industrial lobbying of the government, rather than being ordered by the Army. Industrial initiative however also led to swift advances. Some in the French army had lobbied for the alternative mass production of super-heavy tanks, the resultant gigantic Char 2C, the most complex and technologically advanced tank of its day, was the outcome of this. Only ten were eventually produced, and these were far too late to participate in World War. The Char 2C would be the first tank with a three-man turret; the heaviest tank to enter service until late in WW2 and is still the largest ever operational tank.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... e-1917.jpg
French tank from the Groupe D’Artillerie Spéciale at Berry-au-Bac, at the opening of the Nivelle Offensive in April 1917

French production initially lagged well behind the British. After August 1916 however, British tank manufacture was temporarily halted while better designs were completed, allowing the French to overtake their allies in numbers at least. During the Nivelle offensive of April 1917, the first use in battle of the French Tanks, the French Army had four times more tanks available that the British.

This numerical superiority was brief however as the French offensive was a major failure; the Schneiders were badly deployed and they suffered large losses from German artillery. The Saint-Chamond tanks, first deployed on 5 May 1917, proved to be so badly designed that they were unable to cross the first line of the German trenches. Not an auspicious start.

The Renault FT 17

We’ve already taken a look at the Renault FT-17 – this tank had a long life and saw use in WWII and even later in Indochina. It was utilised as far away as in China, during the Chinese Civil Wars, and versions of the tank were used both against and by the Japanese during the invasion of China. A large number found their way into both Republican and Nationalist hands during the Spanish Civil War. They were used in the Russian Revolution by both the Bolsheviks and the White Russians. France exported the FT 17 right up to World War II. The design was also developed by the Italians as the Fiat 3000 and the USSR as the T-18. The last known combat action by the Renault FT was in Afghanistan in the 1980’s when a handful of the tanks were used as static pill boxes or roadblocks.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... -FT-17.jpg
On 20 October, the Afghan Defence Ministry officially handed over the historic vehicle to Polish Ambassador in Kabul Piotr Łukasiewicz. The Russians probably seized the tank during the 1920 war, and presented it as a gift to the then Afghan emir in 1923.

Remnants of equipment from many other countries lie in ruins scattered across the Afghanistan landscape, faint traces of the military equipment of many countries whuh has made its way to this remote land. Many of the items are still being used, but much also litters the sides of the roads and decorates various junkyards. Amongst these remnants were Four old renault FT-17’s, two of which lay disassembled and rusting in a junkyard in Kabul whilst another sat on a plinth on display. These four Renault FT17’s given as a gift by the Soviet Union to Afghanistan in 1923. They had been captured in the Battle of Równe, on 5 July 1920…after being abandoned by the Polish forces. The two tanks in the junkyard have now been shipped to the US whilst the third (photo above) has been given to Poland as of 20 October 2012. The Polish Embassy in Kabul transported the tank to the Bagram base and handed it over to the Polish Military Contingent in Afghanistan frm where it was transferred to Poland by the Operational Command and the Armed Forces Support Inspectorate. The Renault FT-17 will be renovated by Stefan Czarniecki Land Forces Training Centre in Poznan. According to President Bronislaw Komorowski’s decision, the tank will be put on public display as a valuable reminder of the 1920 Polish-Soviet war.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... T17-01.jpg
The FT-17 was one of the success stories of the First World War. The small tank was mechanically reliable after some initial teething problems. Owing to it’s size and narrow body, it was a relatively hard target for German artillerymen. But the standout feature of the FT-17 was the 360 degree rotating turret, which has been the mainstay of tank designs ever since. The version in the foreground is a wireless or command tank.

In battle in 1918, the Renault FT’s proved their worth immediately. They proved themselves technically also, continuing to perform in sustained operations with minimal technical support – miraculous by WW1 standards. The Soissons offensive of July 1918 saw the Renault’s in the vanguard of the attack and also showed the offensive power of tanks. The most significant tactical problem was the continued lack of sufficient tank-infantry training and as the atnks themselves were only good for a few dozen hours of operation before they required an overhaul, training was limited.

The major killers of the Renault’s in battle proved to be artillery, the anti-tank trench (and large shell craters) and mechanical problems. Mines were also a threat, although not many Renault’s were destroyed by these. Bridging tanks were, by the end of WW1, already being used as a solution to the anti-tank trenches. By late 1918, attacks were not necessarily being preceded by heavy artillery bombardments since the resulting craters were obstacles to the passage of the tanks. In the final offensives of September-October 1918, the Renaults enabled the French infantry to return to the fight, the poilus no longer faced the machine-guns alone. They were able to advance behind the tanks, watching as the machinegun nests were smashed and overrun by the tanks. There was no grand victory, but these battles heralded the end of trench warfare.

Although many were sold to other nations, over 2,800 Renault FT-17’s remained with the French Army. In contrast to the United Kingdom, which greatly reduced its armoured forces and scrapped redundant AFVs after the war, France continued to maintain a large number of active or reserve armoured units (with an organic tank strength of about 1,260 tanks) and all of the remaining Renault FTs were at least kept in working order.

Next Post: The last of the French WW1 Tanks – the Char 2C
ex Ngāti Tumatauenga ("Tribe of the Maori War God") aka the New Zealand Army

User avatar
CanKiwi2
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 26 Nov 2010, 16:48
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

The last of the French WW1 Tanks - the Char 2C

#671

Post by CanKiwi2 » 23 Oct 2014, 18:34

The Char 2C was the last of the French tanks developed during WW1 and was a “super-heavy” tank. In physical dimensions it was the largest operational tank ever built – the next operational tank to even approach its weight would be the German Tiger II tank of WW2. Ten were eventually built and entered service, remaining in use up until WW2, when they were activated during the French mobilization.

Image
Image
The Char 2C was intended as a breakthrough tank or “Fortress Tank” (Char de forteresse), intended to lead the great Allied offensives that were planned for the spring of 1919. France planned to produce 300, but only 10 were ever built. This monster had a crew of 12, weighed some 152,100 pounds, and was powered by two Maybach or Daimler Benz 250-hp gasoline engines. It had a speed of 7.5 mph. The Char 2C had maximum 45mm armor and was armed with a turreted 75mm gun (later a 155mm) and four machine guns.

The origins of the Char 2C have always been shrouded in mystery. In the summer of 1916, General Mourret, the Subsecretary of Artillery, verbally granted Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée (FCM), a shipyard in the south of France near Toulon, a contract for the development of a heavy tank, a char d’assaut de grand modèle. At the time, French industry was very active in lobbying for defence orders, using their connections with high-placed officials and officers to obtain commissions; development contracts could be very profitable even when not resulting in actual production, as they were fully paid for by the state. The French Army had no stated requirement for a heavy tank, and there was no official policy to procure one so the decision seems to have been taken solely on his personal authority, for reasons we can now only surmise.

The reason he later gave was that the British tanks then in development seemed to be better devised as regarded lay-out, ventilation and fire protection, so awarding a contract to a shipyard might improve on existing French designs. Exact specifications, if they ever existed, have been lost. FCM then largely neglected the project, apart from reaping the financial benefits. At that time all tank projects were highly secret, and therefore well shielded from public scrutiny. This was soon to change, however as, following the British deployment of tanks in battle for the first time, the French people and politicians now became curious as to the state of their own national tank projects. This sudden attention greatly alarmed Mourret, who promptly investigated the progress that had been made at FCM and was shocked to find there there had been none.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 52x300.jpg
Albert Thomas (1878-1932) was a prominent French Socialist and the first Minister of Armament for the French Third Republic during World War I.

On 30 September 1916 he personally took control of the project and even without a design, ordered FCM to build one prototype. This development coincided with a political demand by the Minister of Armament Albert Thomas to produce a tank superior to the British types. Mourret asked Renault for help with the design and with assistance from the Renault team (who had fortuitously already prepared a feasibility study for a heavy tank), a full-size wooden mock-up was quickly constructed. In January 1917 the design was presented to the Consultative Committee of the Assault Artillery, who decided to have two prototypes built. By December 1917 the first prototype, the FCM 1A, was ready.

Mourret had by now been replaced as head of the commission by Estienne, whose good friend General Philippe Pétain, the new High Commander of the French Army, asked him to use his position to end the project. Estienne told Pétain that this was ill-advised while the public was questioning why these heavy tanks had not been produced. Besides, the allies (specifically the British and the US) would consent to give France 700 of the new Mark VIII Liberty design only if France had made at least a token effort to produce its own heavy tanks. Thus the French authorities had to delay the project while outwardly endorsing it. Estienne had already set this course by choosing the heaviest version, the “C”, for production, requiring a completely new prototype, causing a considerable delay. Pétain then demanded unreasonably high production numbers, asking for 300 heavy tanks to be ready for March 1919, thus delaying planning and initiating a political row, causing a quarrel to erupt between Clemenceau, who was both Prime-Minister and Minister of War, and Louis Loucheur, the Minister of Armament, who believed it impossible to provide the labour and steel required.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... uction.jpg
The Char 2C’s under construction at FCM

Meanwhile, Estienne and Pétain complicated the issue with further demands. Pétain asked for special pontoons while Estienne demanded battering rams and electronic mine detectors. When WW1 ended, not a single Char 2C had been built. The production order for the Char 2C was cancelled. However, despite the end of hostilities, strong political pressure to adopt new heavy tank projects remained as there was now a considerable surplus capacity in French industry. The Direction de l’Artillerie d’Assaut thus decided in April 1919 to procure ten Char 2Cs and to simultaneously use this order as an argument to reject any further projects. The Char 2C prototype was finished together with the other nine tanks being built; all ten were delivered in 1921 although modifications by the factory continued until 1923. They would be the last French tanks to be produced for the home market until the Char D1 pre-series of 1931.

The Char 2C had a loaded weight of 69 tonnes, partly because of its armour – 45 mm at the front, 22 mm at the sides, but much of it just because of its huge size. The armour was among the thickest of World War I-era tanks, though by modern standards this would be considered thin (The 40mm armor plating was substantial in 1918, but much less so by 1940 particularly when combined with the gigantic target the tank presented). With the tail fitted, the hull was over twelve metres long. Within its ample frame there was room for four compartments: a relatively short drivers compartment at the front, a fighting compartment with a 3-man turret (the first such in history) at its top mounting a long 75mm gun, a larger munitions room and finally a large engine compartment at the rear and a rear fighting compartment topped by a machine gun turret. Both turrets had stroboscopic cupolas. The three independent 8 mm machine gun positions at the front gave protection against infantry assault.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... r2c-02.jpg
Char 2c with 12 crew members, 13th is likely the Company Commander

The fighting compartments were connected by the engine room. Each track was powered by its own 200 or 250 hp engine, via an electrical transmission. The original engines were German-made Mercedes diesels, later replaced by Maybach models, all of them part of the war reparations taken by France following the Great War. Mechanical reliability remained low: The German manufacturers were reluctant to provide spare parts, and may have given the French defective engines. Patriotic French mechanics disliked working on German-made equipment, with more than one man demanding a transfer. As a result, no more than six of the 10 tanks were ever fully operational at the same time, while the enormous fuel consumption made Army accountants reluctant to authorize their use for training.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... nce_01.jpg
Tank Number 91, named “Provence,” on its special rail car

The tank had been designed with a comparatively narrow width to make it transportable by rail, but loading the 2C aboard a specially-built flatcar was a difficult and time-consuming task. That cumbersome rail-transport process would eventually prove the undoing of the 2C. Top speed was 15 km/h. Seven fuel tanks, containing 1,260 litres, gave it a range of 150 kilometres. The suspension contained 39 interleaving road wheels on each side, making for a total of 90 wheels on the tank. To man the tank required a crew of twelve: driver, commander, gunner, loader, four machine gunners, mechanic, electrician, assistant-electrician / mechanic and a radio operator. Some sources report thirteen men, probably due to pictures of the crews that included the company commander.

Much attention had been given to ergonomics, Mourret’s stated motive in having the tank designed by a shipyard. The vehicle was less cramped than earlier designs, the crew being able to more or less walk around inside the hull. The mechanic could access the engine from either side. The commander could communicate with the driver, the front machine-gunner and the mechanic via speaking tubes. External communications were the responsibility of the mechanic who could lift a little hatche just behind the turret to signal by fanions, pyrotechnic devices or electrical lights. The tank could be entered through the cupola, but each crew member also had oval or round escape hatches above and below him.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 2C_003.jpg
The Normandie #97 with skid tail in place, in maneuvers. Note the difference in size with Renault R-35

Each track was powered by its own 200 or 250 hp engine, via an electrical transmission. Top speed was 15 km/h. Seven fuel tanks, containing 1,260 litres, gave it a range of 150 kilometres. The suspension contained 39 interleaving road wheels on each side, making for a total of 90 wheels on the tank. Later, new engines (two Sautter-Harlé engines 6-cyl 250hp/each) were fitted and the machine guns in the side positions were deleted. In this configuration the tank weighed perhaps 74 tons. Between 15 November and 15 December 1939 the Lorraine, as the company command tank, was experimentally up-armoured at the Société des Aciéries d’Homecourt to make it immune to standard German antitank guns. The front armour was enhanced to 90 mm, the side to 65 mm. In this configuration, weighing about 75 tons, the Lorraine had at that time the thickest armour of any operational tank, and is probably still the heaviest operational tank ever.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 2C_007.jpg
Champagne #99. Notice the cammo…

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 2C_005.jpg
Bretagne #94 coming out of a creek, spraying mud and water.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... jou_01.jpg
Tank number 96, named “Anjou,” could not be made to run and was written off in September 1939

During the French mobilisation of 1939, all ten were activated and put into their own unit, the 51st Bataillon de Chars de Combat. For propaganda purposes, each tank had been named after one of the ancient regions of France, numbers 90-99 being named Poitou; Provence; Picardie; Alsace; Bretagne; Touraine; Anjou; Lorraine; Berry; Champagne respectively. In 1939, the Lorraine was renamed Normandie. As their main value was in propaganda, the giants were kept carefully out of harm’s way and did not participate in the September 1939 attack on the Siegfried Line. They were used instead for numerous morale-boosting movies, in which they were often shown climbing and crushing old French forts. Their public reputation was of invincible super tanks, the imagined dimensions of which far surpassed the actual particulars.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... y_tank.jpg
Tank number 96, named “Anjou” being examined by the Germans

The French commanders knew perfectly well that this reputation was undeserved. When the German Army ripped apart the French lines after 10 June 1940, the decision was made to prevent the capture of the famous tanks. All were to be sent to the south by rail transport. On 15 June the railway on which they were being transported was blocked by a burning fuel train, so it became necessary to destroy the tanks by detonating charges. Later Goebbels and Göring claimed the tanks were hit by German dive bombers. This propaganda lie was to be repeated by many sources. One tank, the Champagne, was nevertheless captured more or less intact and brought to Berlin to be exhibited as a war trophy. In 1948 this tank disappeared, causing many to speculate it still survives at the Russian Tank museum in Kubinka.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... ber_91.jpg
Char 2C Number 91

Next, we’ll look at French Tanks of the 1930’s – some of which were considered by Finland as the Finnish Army built up armoured units through the decade of the 1930’s.
ex Ngāti Tumatauenga ("Tribe of the Maori War God") aka the New Zealand Army

User avatar
CanKiwi2
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 26 Nov 2010, 16:48
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

French Tanks through the 1930's

#672

Post by CanKiwi2 » 23 Oct 2014, 19:12

France came out of the First World War with the laurels of a winner and the promise of interesting developments with the little Renault FT, the first mass-produced tank of the modern age. But the vagaries of the Fourth Republic and the choices facing an ageing staff would turn to the creation of a force largely marked by a strong defensive vision, relying mainly on the Maginot Line. French tanks were classified as infantry and cavalry models, with some “chars de rupture” (breakthrough tanks). Production and testing was ongoing in the late twenties and thirties, leading to a new generation of armored vehicles by 1935-36. These formed the bulk of the armored forces of France (then numerically the largest in the world) in September 1939.

As far as tank design was concerned, French engineers came up with various innovative designs of their own. The army – partly because of political issues and spending concentrated on the Maginot Line – was not given a sizable budget before 1932-34. This forced the continued use of the existing obsolescent types, the fleet of Renault FTs and the very few super-heavy FMC-2s. Renault attempted to modernize its best seller (very popular on the export market) while Panhard courted the cavalry with its armored cars. Both tried to implement the Kégresse track system, an innovative design which proved to be more useful on half-tracks. The mass-produced US M2/M3 models of WW2 used a similar system. The French adopted it for the AMC P13 and also for many off-road trucks and gun tractors delivered to the Army.

Casting was incorporated into French tank manufacturing early on, in 1934-35, first for turrets and then for hulls. The Hotchkiss H35, for example, was the first tank to be built entirely by cast sections (the hull needed three sections, the driver’s compartment, fighting compartment and engine bay), which helped standardization for mass-production. Cast parts when welded together allowed for a lighter weight, were less labor-intensive and prevented the risk of spalling. The SOMUA S35 also made use of an entirely cast hull and turret, also with many large prefabricated parts. The Souma S3 design was in fact influential on the US when they decided to build the Sherman M4A1.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 5usine.jpg
French workers assembling tank guns, probably the 75mm Char-B1-bis hull gun?

Other innovative features were more specific, such as the Oleo-pneumatic steering system designed to steer the massive hull of the B1 heavy tank. In this case, the driver was also aiming the main 75 mm (2.95 in) gun. Many other tanks allowed some limited traverse for their hull-mounted gun, compensating for the lack of precision of the standard brake-steering system. French engineers, however, designed a system theoretically giving the greatest possible precision to the driver, allowing accurate traverse. However this system in operation proved too fragile and complex.

French tanks were generally better protected than their German opponents. The reason behind this was their doctrine of use. They were not seen as independent units but were to be spread amongst infantry units so as to offer close support on the battlefield. For this reason strong armor was of capital importance, the speed was “infantry pace” and the low-velocity guns were meant to deal with concrete fortifications and pillboxes rather than with opposing tanks. This doctrine went back to trench warfare and the experiences of WWI. All French tank models, until 1937 at least, were designed for the same kind of operations as practiced in 1918. They were spread out on the battle line, under the command of generals moving little flags on maps, inside a rigid, pyramidal chain of command.

Consequently French tanks were generally slow (with the exception of cavalry tanks like the SOMUA S35 and scout tankettes) and relatively underpowered – and this was not seen as an issue since infantry pace was required. Range was also limited by fuel consumption but the tactical needs were seen as limited in scope to the area of a typical WWI battlefield. A 50-100 km (30-60 mi) area of operations was foreseen. Radio communication between tanks was sorely lacking, with flags and couriers used instead. The common practice in 1935 was that only command tanks possessed a long-range radio.

Demography was also, surprisingly, a critical factor with French tank design. After the Great War, the demographic pyramid was inverted in France and Germany, resulting in a natality gap largely favorable to Germany, which was crucial twenty years later. After 1935 the French were vividly aware of this, a fact that was reflected in the army’s specifications. To cope with the normal provision of tanks per units, and faced with limited manpower, the most viable option seen was to limit tank crews to three men and design the tank around these men.

With more complex requirements, new tank models saw a multiplication of tasks which were not counter-balanced by an increase in crew numbers nor a new turret design. The commander remained isolated in his single-man turret, with the task of commanding, loading and manning the main gun and the coaxial machine-gun, plus sometimes the radio. The driver and a loader/co-gunner/mechanic completed this busy crew. As a result, French tank commanders were task-overloaded and simply couldn’t cope with both other tanks maneuvering around them and dealing with several threats at the same time. This helps explain why French tanks units were decimated despite having better armor. Another issue was the lack of penetrating power of the French guns, the most common being the short APX (Puteaux) 37 mm (1.46 in) designed for infantry support.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... uteaux.jpg
Puteaux M 1918 37mm semi-automatic short gun / Canon de 37mm court semi-automatique Puteaux modèle 1918

French logistics were also a weak point. France pioneered their first armoured division, with a combination of tanks, armoured cars, motorised infantry and artillery. It was called the Division Legere Mecanique (DLM – Light Mechanical Division). In the mid 1930s France created to entirely motorised armoured light divisions, that were equipped with the brand-new SOMAU S-35 tank. Although called ‘light’ divisions, they were well-equipped units that were the equivalent of a German Panzer division. They had 300 armoured vehicles, including 190 tanks, mostly medium tanks like the Hotchkiss H35 H39, Renault R35 and the Somau S-35. By the beginning of 1940, there were four of these divisions in the French army. In 1939 the French army formed a heavier armed unit called the Division Cuirassee (DCR). These contained Char B1 heavy tanks and some older Char D2 tanks as the main striking force.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... parade.jpg
A group of 13.2 mm-armed AMR 35s, belonging to 4e RDP, 1re DLM; the vehicle in front, No. 87347, is the second produced and shows the large rosettes typical of this unit from 1938

While the French had some excellent medium and heavy tanks, the sheer variety of different types caused logistic problems. The French ordnance officers and quartermasters had to make sure that the correct spare parts and ammunition were sent to the right units when needed. This often did not happen. Once war broke out, some tanks were abandoned because of lack of ammunition and lack of the correct parts to mend a broken down tank. The only helpful factor was that the S-35 had the same turret and 47mm SA 35 gun as fitted to the char B1 and D2 tanks. Logistical problems were a major factor in the defeat of the French army. Lack of fuel was a big problem for the tank units when most tanks consumed gallons of fuel per mile. The French 3rd Light Mechanised Division for example was ordered to start a counter-attack on 20 May 1940 alongside British units. They were unable to get into position until the 22nd due to fuel shortages and crew exhaustion. The 3rd DLM could only muster around 60 Somua S35 tanks as they had already lost all their Hotchkiss H35 tanks.

We’ll now go on to look at the French tanks and armoured vehicles of the 1930’s. In doing so, we’ll concentrate on models which were produced in relatively large numbers and which were potentially available for export to Finland. Those vehicles produced in small numbers will by and large be ignored. As France was a supplier of tanks and other armoured vehicles to the Finnish Army in limited quantities both through the 1930’s and in the early part of the Winter War, I’ll also indicate whether a particular model was purchased or given to Finland and in what quantities. This will serve as a prelude to the study of the founding and expansion of the Finnish Armoured Divisions of the Winter War that will end this series of Posts.

Renault Char D-1 – requested 1928 (160 built between 1930-1934)

The French plan of 1926, calling for the creation of a Light Infantry Support Tank, led to the development of the existing Renault NC1 prototype into the Char D1. In 1923 Louis Renault had obtained an order to build two prototypes of a modification to the design of the Renault FT’s, with the factory designation of Renault NC. In 1928 Renault had his Renault NC accepted as a light infantry tank two prototypes ordered. The Army called this project the Char D and ordered a pre-series of ten vehicles in December 1929. The ten hulls were delivered between May and November 1931: an interval of ten years from the delivery of the last Char 2C in 1921. With this order, French tank production for the home market had finally resumed. In testing the prototypes, many shortcomings were identified and the type entered mass production, albeit with some further modifications.

The Char D1’s Renault FT ancestry can be seen in the sloping engine deck and the profile of the side armour plates. For its time the Char D1 was relatively well armoured; the hull weighing 11 metric tons. A 74 hp V-4 6.08 litre engine gave a top speed of 18.6 km/h with a range of 90 kms. The D1 had a crew of three: a driver who, as with the Renault FT, was seated below large double hatches that formed the nose plates, a radio operator who also assisted in the loading of the gun, and a third crew member, the commander, located in the turret. With the turret, the total weight was 14 metric tons with a total vehicle price of 475,000 FF. The Char D1 was thus neither particularly light nor cheap.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... D11936.jpg
Renault Char D1 with ST2 turret in 1936

One hundred and sixty of these tanks were produced between 1931 and 1935. Until 1936 the vehicles were fitted with Renault FT turrets because the intended cast ST2 turrets were not yet ready. The ST2 turret was fitted with a short 47mm SA34 tank gun with a coaxial 7.5mm machine gun. The hull was equipped with a 7.5mm MG in the bow. In 1932 the Char D1 was the most — indeed the only — modern tank available to the French Army and served as France’s major battle tank of the early thirties rather than as an infantry support tank as originally intended.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... r-d1_1.jpg
Renault Char D1

For the regiments receiving the new tank, the D1 proved a grave disappointment. The main reason was its very poor mechanical reliability. In March 1934, when 110 vehicles had been delivered, seventeen were already worn out and had to be returned to the factory for a complete rebuild; of the remaining 93, 62 were non-operational because of major defects. Burn-through of brakes and transmissions was common; the armour plates bent out of shape because the chassis was not stiff enough, rivets regularly snapped. The fundamental cause was that the Renault design team had “solved” the problem of combining low weight with low cost by using weak components of inferior quality steel: other later Renault designs such as the AMR 33, AMC 35 and Char D2 would also suffer from similar problems.

In 1935 a large maintenance program was started to improve the Char D1’s mechanical reliability. However in March 1936 when tank units were rushed to the German border in reaction to the Rhineland Crisis, it became painfully obvious that their poor readiness state had not been rectified. The new ST2 turret only worsened the situation: the glass of the diascopes was shattered by mere driving; there were no AP-rounds available, the munition racks had not been changed to hold the new and larger 47mm rounds. The ST2 turret also proved too small to be adapted to the much more powerful 47 mm SA35 gun. Analysis led the Army to conclude that it should rid itself as soon as possible of the troublesome tank.

The Char D1s were thereafter shipped to the typical destination of French army ordnance that was obsolete but too valuable to be scrapped: the colonies. In 1937 the D1’s were transferred to colonial units in North Africa.

Renault Char D2 – requested 1930 with 100 built 1936 and 1940

While the Renault D1 was still in development, a heavier version was requested the Direction de l’Infanterie on 23 January 1930. This request called for a medium tank (the D1 was a light model) with 40 mm (1.57 in) of armor and a higher top speed (13.67 mph/22 km/h) than the D1, which in turn required a far more powerful engine. Negotiations ended in April-May, Renault also agreeing to build an adapted version for the colonies, the D3. It was also hoped that it could replace the heavy B1 bis if the later would have been banned by an armament reduction treaty in negotiation at that time. However, this never happened, and the D2 soon became a low-priority project and the army greatly reduced the initial order of 750. Two batches of 50 would be eventually delivered by the company, the first in 1936-37 (called model 1935) and the second, much improved, in 1940 (model 1938).

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... -d2-01.jpg
The Renault Char D2 was developed from the Renault D1

Three prototypes were built. The first was the Renault UZ, with a riveted hull and Renault FT turret (April 1932). It was tested at Rueil with the 503e RCC and accepted in service in December 1933. One year earlier, two welded hull prototypes had been ordered and build, to be delivered in November 1933. Nevertheless, the first batch was approved without testing the real production model. This was done in order to partially finance the cost of applying new welding techniques. This building technique proposed by Renault saved weight and time. This was a costly and complex process that Renault had a hard time mastering, and since the production was rushed, problems immediately appeared.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... -d2-02.jpg
The first 50 D2 tanks manufactured were delivered to the 1st Battalion, 507th RCC (based in the neighborhood of Metz) to replace their D1’s, which were sent to Tunisia

In most respects, the D2 was a slightly enlarged D1, retaining many features of the previous vehicle, like the vertical coil suspension design. The D2 was still narrow, with the turret placed forward, immediately behind the driver’s compartment, and a long, sloped back engine hood. Massive side skirts with mud chutes, similar to the former vehicles, were also retained. Previous experience dictated the return rollers be placed higher to prevent track resonance. The tracks were 35 cm (13.78 in) wide. The suspensions counted three bogies, each with four road wheels, one coil spring and two shock absorbers, per side. The crew was three, the radio operator being seated next to the driver, operating the hull Reibel machine-gun (low, right side). The commander was seated in the turret. As usual in this configuration, he had to operate the gun (loading, aiming and firing), serve the coaxial machine-gun and command the tank at the same time. There was a four-speed gearbox, and four fuel tanks, giving a 100 km (62 mi) range. The D2 could cross a 2.1 m (6.89 ft) wide trench, climb a 80 cm (2.62 ft) obstacle, climb slopes of 45° and ford 120 cm (3.94 ft) deep rivers.

Image
Image
Renault Char D2 with APX1 cast turret

The first batch was approved on 29 December 1934, based on the tests performed with the three prototypes, fitted with gasoline and diesel engines. The gasoline engine was retained. The turret was bought separately from another manufacturer, the Puteaux factory near Paris, and the APX-1 was chosen, a modern, cast turret fitted with a SA-34 short barrel 47 mm gun (1.85 in) (from the same manufacturer) and a coaxial Reibeil 7.5 mm (0.29 in) machine-gun, and a hemispheric observation cupola. As usual, the commander could sit partly outside on a rear turret hatch. The turret cost was 200,000 frs, which when added to the cost of the hull (410,000 frs apiece) raised the unit cost to 610,000 frs. The first units from the batch were delivered in May 1935, the last in February 1937. The SA-34 had limited antitank capabilities. It was supplied with HE shells (obus D, muzzle velocity of 490 m/s / 1607 ft/s), and AP shells (model 1932, muzzle velocity of 480 m/s / 1574 ft/s, piercing only 25 mm/0.98 in at 100 m/328 ft). Two command vehicles were built (chassis 2016 – 2049), equipped with a second ER51 long range set.

The second batch was ordered in June 1938, (despite alarming tests reporting balance unreliability) following Renault’s assurance that they could produce two hundred units a year. However, this proved overoptimistic in the context of 1937-1938, with Renault plagued by general strikes and financial problems. Production was postponed, and there was uncertainty about possible exports to Poland or Belgium, exports which were eventually opposed by the Supreme Commander Maurice Gamelin for fear of technology transfers. The state of the first batch was so poor that their conversion into flame-thrower tanks was envisioned, while the unit tanks were to be replaced by newer tanks. When WW2 broke out, Edouard Daladier confirmed mass production of the type, however deliveries were kept low, three to five vehicles per month, so that the entire second batch was not completed until June. The last fifteen were probably not taken in action in time.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... -d2-11.jpg
Renault Char D2

The second batch was basically identical, mostly differing by the use of a more modern APX-4 turret, bearing a 47 mm (1.85 in) SA-35 long barrel gun, quite effective against tanks. PPLR X 160 episcopes replaced the older Chrétien type, and there was a S 190 G attachment point on the roof for an extra 7.5 mm (0.29 in) AA machine gun. An improved greasing system, modified idler wheels and sprockets, ball bearings, shorter mudguards, a new Vertex distributor and Vlex starter completed this overhaul. At the same time, older vehicles from the first batch received upgraded APX 1A turrets, and were taken over at the Atelier de Rueil for rebuilding – namely to fix all the issues previously known. This process started in March 1940 and continued until May 1940. At the same time, the flame-thrower project was maintained but never carried out despite a prototype being built in 1939.

The D2 was plagued by mechanical unreliability and quickly worn-out, a problem further aggravated by the lack of spare parts. The D2 also proved ill-adapted to snow conditions.

Renault AMR 33 (123 built between 1933 and 1936)

In 1931 the French cavalry arm needed a fast vehicle for forward reconnaissance missions. Renault, eager to be ready for the upcoming specifications, quickly completed the design for a very small and light vehicle by November 1931. This first Tracteur léger de cavalerie type VM was equipped with Carden-Loyd suspension (copied without a licence), was lightly armored and equipped only with a single machine-gun. On January 16, 1932, the specification came in, calling for a three-ton light reconnaissance tracked vehicle armed with a machine gun and with a range of 200 km (124.27 mi), to be called “Automitrailleuse de Reconnaissance”, abbreviated as AMR, since the Cavalry was forbidden by law to have tanks. For the army this was a skirmishing, radio-less vehicle rather than a pure recon vehicle, like the AMDs (Automitrailleuse de Découverte).

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... -33-07.jpg
Renault AMR 33

Renault meanwhile had completed its prototype, based on the Renault UE and showing impressive performance. It had excellent off-road capabilities and could cruise at 50 km/h (31 mph) and could reach 35-40 km/h (21.74-24.85 mph) on bad terrain. This prototype was rejected as too cramped for operational use. Ten days later, officers from the Section Technique de la Cavalerie approached Renault to design a tankette based on the AMR concept. The General HQ commander, General Maxime Weygand, eventually agreed to the type. Renault then quickly returned to the drawing board and presented a larger wooden mock-up in March 1932. On April 20 1932 an order for 5 prototypes was signed, with a deadline of the Champagne maneuvers in September 1933. Each of the prototypes was delivered on schedule, testing different suspension configurations, all based on the Carden-Loyd type. These prototypes were equipped with one of Renault’s most powerful, already available, commercial engines, the 6-cylinder Reinastella, also used on the luxury sedan of the same name.

AMR 33 Design

By weight and dimensions the AMR 33 was first considered as a light tank, not a tankette, but that was before the appearance of the much heavier Hotchkiss 35, Renault 35 and FCM-36 tanks. By all other standards, the AMR 33’s were tankettes. First of all, they were small with a very low profile. Their suspension was largely “inspired” by (copied from) the Carden-Loyd design. The empty hull weighed just 4.5 tons, the armor was only 13 mm (0.51 in) thick and was made from riveted plates which supposedly protected the crew from heavy machine guns . The engine fitted was another commercial model, the eight-cylinder 84 hp 4241 cc Renault Nervasport. This powerful engine combined with the lightweight hull allowed for speeds in excess of 60 km/h (37 mph) on flat ground, and 47 km/h (28 mph) off-road. There was a Cleveland differential and a 4 forward, 1 reverse gearbox. The main fuel tank contained 128 liters (33.81 gal), giving a 225 km (139 mi) range. The tracks were narrow, as was customary for tankettes, at just 22 cm (8.66 in) width. The AMR 33 could ford 60 cm (1.96 ft) deep rivers, cross 1.4 m (4.59 ft) wide trenches, climb a 45 cm (1.47 ft) high obstacle or a 50° slope.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... -33-06.jpg
Renault AMR 33

The armor was well sloped at the front glacis (9 mm/0.35 in), 13 mm (0.51 in) thick on the vertical plates, 6 mm (0.23) on the top and 5 mm (0.19 in) on the bottom. The driver sat on the left, next to the engine, seeing through a large opening protected by a lifting hatch pierced by a vision slit. The engine could be accessed through a hatch on the right, and crew entered the vehicle through the rear two-piece door. The turret was also on the left, with the commander inside, provided with a top observation hatch (and not a rear hatch as was customary in French tanks). The turret was of the Renault type. Initially a Schneider cast one was preferred, but found to be too expensive. The Renault type, made of sloped riveted plates was lighter and easier to build. This AVIS turret had been designed by the Atelier de Vincennes and was shifted slightly to the front to improve visibility. The compact Reibel 7.5 mm (0.29 in) machine-gun was a fortress model, comparable to the British-Czech Besa. There was however an optional pedestal mount, adjusted on top of the turret for an extra AA machine gun.

AMR 33 Trials and production

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... r33vm1.jpg
Défilé de Renault AMR 33. C’était un des chars de reconnaissance français les plus répandus.

The Renault prototypes were tested in real and large scale exercises with the first operational French cavalry unit, the Détachement Mécanique de Sûreté. However the Commission de Vincennes charged to test them, although finding their speed sufficient enough, was not so positive about their weight and range. In April 1933, new tests were performed with two tankettes fitted with dead weight mimicking extra armor. One had a horizontal rubber spring suspension, the other a central vertical spring and casings of the horizontal springs oil-filled to act as dampers. Renault preferred the first, but the Army choose the second (with dire consequences), and approved this version for productionon the 6th of June 1933 as the Renault AMR modèle 1933.

The first order of 45 units was issued by the Cavalry Corps as early as March 1933. A second order of twenty was put through on June 22nd, with deliveries being scheduled for July. Finally a third order for fifty was placed in August. However production proved difficult at first and finally the deliveries began in June 1934 and ended in September. Two machines were completely rebuilt to produce a new improved model, the AMR-35. To compensate, three others were built in the spring of 1935. Indeed the flaws quickly detected on the model 33 put an end to further developments. The AMR-35 was much more successful. The first problem was excessive vibrations and noise caused by the engine. Compartmentalization was poor and there no intercom nor radio. But moreover, the suspensions, initially designed for far lighter models proved far too too weak for the task, broke down, broke off, or literally fell to pieces in prolonged off-road rides.

The AMR 33 in action

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 3_ger2.jpg
AMR 33’s on the move

At the beginning their operational concept called for a mass of light tanks preceding the medium types, but since in the meantime mediums were produced in sufficient numbers and the AMR 33s saw themselves quickly replaced by the AMR-35, their role shifted towards infantry and dismounted cavalry support. By 1934, 115 vehicles has been delivered so far, and spread among five cavalry divisions, in GAM (Groupe d’Automitrailleuses) units comprising three platoons of four, two reserve/training, and one command model. However the 5th DC received only ten and the 4th DC forty. It was composed then of the 4th BPC (Bataillon de Dragons Portés) and 18e Dragons.

By 1935, the 4e DC was converted into a fully armored division, at first with six full squadrons of AMR 33s and later reinforced with medium tanks. At the end, the 1 DLM and 2 DLM (Division légères Mécaniques) formed the core of these new divisions in case of war. However by 1937, the mechanical unreliability of the AMR 33 was notorious and all had been replaced by the AMR-35. The AMR 33s were concentrated in remaining RAMs (Régiment d’Automitailleuses) forming light divisions of 46 vehicles.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... mr33_4.jpg
Knocked out French Army AMR 33

However, these were reorganized once again between September 1939 and May 1940 into five newly-formed Divisions Légères de Cavalerie (“Light Cavalry Divisions”). However their organic strength was still poor, ranging from 26 to 22 per DLC, and this was proven during the battle of France. They had been posted in the Ardennes sector and found themselves badly prepared to stop the German advance, only participating in skirmishes, covering actions and support actions for the infantry, but proved easy prey for the Panzer II and many armored cars equipped with the same 20 mm (0.78 in) gun.

The losses were appalling. An AMR 33 of the 3rd DLC was the first French tank destroyed in battle, but most of the 75% losses occurred due to breakdowns issues rather than enemy fire. On June 7, 1940, the 7e DLM was created of surviving vehicles and some reserves, having 14 AMRs in total. Most were lost. After the armistice, the Germans captured a handful of these models, renamed Panzerspähwagen VM 701 (f). They never left French soil and were probably kept for patrolling and anti-partisan activity. A single AMR 33 has survived to this day. It is on static display at the Saumur tank museum in France.

Hotchkiss H35/39 – (1200 built from 1935 to 1940)

Renault and Schneider had been long time manufacturers of French tanks. Hotchkiss (Société Anonyme des Anciens Etablissements Hotchkiss et Cie), founded in 1875 near St Denis (Paris) by Benjamin B. Hotchkiss, an American engineer, was a newcomer in this field in the 1930’s, although already well known by the army for its world-famous machine-guns, cars and transmissions (the Hotchkiss drive). The Hotchkiss H35 Tank was a private design in response to a 1926 specification for a light, cheap infantry tank (or Char d’accompagnement). A proposal was made in June 1933 showing some innovations, including a steel hull cast in sections. It was also theoretically cheaper and lighter than the Renault D2 and was initially selected by the army’s Conseil Consultatif de l’Armement. The final specification (issued on the 2nd of August 1933) asked for a 6-ton tank, uniformly protected by 30 mm (1.18 in) of armor.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... H35-01.jpg
French Hotchkiss H35 tanks on parade

Hotchkiss was not the only bidder against this specification. Renault quickly entered the fray, being the first to deliver its prototype, which would be accepted as the Renault R35. However, the first prototype Hotchkiss demonstrated to Colonel Keller of the Commission of Vincennes, was a machine-gun armed tankette, tested in March 1935 and followed by another identical vehicle in May. Both were rejected because the initial specification had been changed in the meantime and was now asking for 40 mm (1.57 in) of armor. In August 1935, a third and last prototype was delivered, with a brand new cast steel hull and an APX-R (Puteaux) cast turret fitted with a 37 mm (1.46 in) short barrelled gun. The proposal was accepted in November 1935 as the Hotchkiss H35 and an order for 200 machines promptly.

Production started mid-1936 and by September 1936 the first series of H35’s were being delivered and heavily tested. However their cross-country capabilities had been overestimated. They were badly balanced and gave quite bumpy ride, which was potentially dangerous in formation, particularly when firing on the move. The power-to-weight ratio was also insufficient. Therefore, the Army turned them down. But as the initial order could not be cancelled for fear of a political upheaval, the Cavalry, already interested because of the slow deliveries of the costly Somua S35, decided to take the H35’s instead.

Production was interrupted in late 1937 after 400 had been built. Hotchkiss was requested to revise the design, which became the H39. The Hotchkiss H35 initially equipped several cavalry units but later on, with R35 deliveries proving insufficient, part of the H35 production run was diverted to meeting infantry tank requirements. All the H35 equipped units took part in the fighting of May-June 1940, but performed poorly as a result of of their limited speed, endurance and the low-velocity main gun. However, the German infantry, largely equipped with the PaK 36 37 mm (1.46 in) gun, was baffled to see how their anti-tank rounds simply bounced off the thick armor of these light tanks.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... H35-02.jpg
French Army Hotchkiss H35 tanks

Design of the Hotchkiss H35

The initial H35 was a small and narrow machine, in order to fulfill the bid and keep the weight in check while having the thickest armor any light tank of 1935. The H35 was very similar to the Renault R35, its main competitor. They shared the same APX-R (Puteaux foundry) single-piece cast turret characterized by sloped sides, rounded bottom and a spherical vision cupola. The cupola comprised a PPL RX 180 P optical visor and targeting sight. Just abaft the mantlet there were three Chrétien binocular slide projectors (later horizontal PPL vision slits). The turret, which weighed 1350 kg with full equipment, housed a low-velocity SA 18 gun M37 (87 kg), with a coaxial 7.5 mm (0.295 in) Reibel machine-gun M31, protected by a small additional mantlet. The main gun received 102 rounds, and the machine-gun 2400 rounds. The SA 18 had a +20 -13° elevation. The hull was rather small, completely built of cast parts welded together, only 4.22 m (13.78 ft) long and narrow, at just 1.95 m (6.4). The total weight, in battle order, was a mere 9.6 tons. The tracks were small too – each link was only 27 cm (10.63 in) wide. The smaller links procured a smoother ride. The commander had a small seat and strap, but stood for observation and for operating his weapons.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... H35-03.jpg
Hotchkiss H35 tanks

The suspension was made of six pincer bogies, each holding two rubberized roadwheels, sprung by helicoidal horizontal springs. There was a front drive sprocket, a rear idler wheel and two return rollers on each side. The driver/mechanic sat on the right side, seeing through a periscope mounted on a hinged flap, supplemented by two oblique vision slits on the sides. A door section of the hood opened forward to allow the driver access. The commander/gunner accessed the turret through a rear door, and there was an extra emergency manhole at the hull bottom, just behind the driver. Equipment and tools were situated around the hull, comprising a camouflaged tarp fastened by straps to the back, a shovel, hatchet and cutter, on the left fender, a pickaxe bracket at the left of the hull, a mass, jack and crank on the right fender, a track cleaner on the rear cover, a 10-ton cable at the rear and two towing steel chains attached to the hull rear panel. The engine hood plunged forward, protecting a gasoline, air-cooled, Hotchkiss 3.4 liters, 6 cylinder, developing 75 hp@2400 rpm, for a 8.8 hp/ton ratio. The gearbox was a synchromesh with 5 speeds forward and one reverse. Normal consumption was 130 liters/100 km. The normal speed on road and over flat terrain was 28 km/h, ground pressure was 0.9 kg/cm2. The H35 was capable of climbing a 35° slope, a 70 cm high obstacle and of fording a 0.85 m deep river. However, trench crossing was limited to 1.80 m.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 35_06.jpeg
Hotchkiss H35 tanks in the field

The later-model Hotchkiss H39

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... H39-05.jpg
Hotchkiss H39 Tank – an improved H35

The H39 was an overhaul and upgrade of the H35, with a new Hotchkiss 6-cyl. 5.97 litre engine giving 120 hp at 2800 rpm. With a power-to-weight ratio of 10 hp/ton (the weight had increased to 12.1 tons), top speed was now 36.5 km/h (22.6 mph) on the road and range was increased to 150 km (93 km) thanks to a new 207 litre gasoline tank. The new engine required a redesigned hood, the rear being raised and now being nearly horizontal. Apart from these details, the H39 was very similar to the previous AFV, with the same SA 18 short barrel gun. But it was also subjected to some criticism and, at the end of 1938 a proposal was made to adopt the new SA 38, a long barreled 37 mm (1.46 in) gun, which had far superior penetration power and muzzle velocity. The turret was now equipped only with the new PPL horizontal vision slits.

The SA 38 was supplied with longer rounds, and thus only 90 could be carried (instead of 100 rounds with the SA 18). The gun was in relatively short supply, and despite the priority given to production of this new weapon, many H39s were put in service with the older gun model. 700 H39’s were built in total, starting in October 1938, the last being delivered in feverish conditions, thrown into combat right from the factory door in May 1940 without exhausts or mudguards. In early 1939, the Hotchkiss delivery rate was around 60 units each month. Final records are confusing, and based on the chassis numbers and factory monthly deliveries by 1940, the usual figure is 1200 machines in total, for both subtypes.

The Hotchkiss H35/39 in action

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... H35-04.jpg
This French light tank stands in the centre of Narvik today. It was captured by the German army in 1940 and further modified.

The Hotchkiss H39 was also allocated to cavalry units and Army units. Some 15 H39’s were shipped to Narvik on the 7th of May 1940. Only 12 were withdrawn in June and these finally disembarked in Great Britain where they formed an embryo of the armored forces of the FFL (Forces Françaises Libres), the Free French led by De Gaulle, as the 1e Compagnie de Chars de Combat de la France Libre. Operational formations were unfortunately mismatched. The slow H35s operated with the faster Somua S35, and the H39 with the B1 bis.

During the May-June 1940 campaign in France, the H35 and H39 found themselves committed in spread out formations and rarely had a clear superiority over the enemy. Their 37 mm (1.46 in) “long” model 38 gun was, added to their thick armor, a clear advantage in tank-to-tank engagements against German light tanks. They were matched only by the Czech-built PzKpfw 38(t). However, tactically, the lack of radio and communication with HQ, as well as the overburdened tank commander led to disastrous results. Many were abandoned due to the lack of gasoline, entire units being captured later in this way. Some participated in a few improvised counter-offensives directed against the Germans without air support, which had dire consequences.

Export of the Hotchkiss H35 to Finland

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 34_f_7.jpg
Finnish Army Hotchkiss H35, Winter War, January 1940

In 1936, Finland purchased 60 H35’s, sufficient to equip one Panssaripataljoona (Panzer Battalion). These were delivered without guns – the standard Tampella-manufactured Bofors 37mm was fitted after delivery in Finland, together with the first tank version of the Suomi submachinegun. The H35-equipped Pataljoona would be one of the three Erillinen Pansaaripataljoona (Separate Panzer Battalions) tasked with fighting the initial delaying action on the Karelian Isthmus when the Soviet Union first attacked at the start of the Winter War. In the defensive battles on the Isthmus, operating in close cooperation with infantry, anti-tank guns and artillery and almost always from pre-prepared hull-down positions, the H35’s fought to their strengths. Their Bofors 37 mm gun, added to their thick armor, gave then an advantage in front-on tank-to-tank engagements against the Red Army’s light tanks.

In such conditions, well-protected, with clear lines of fire, pre-planned lines of retreat and good inter-arms cooperation with accompanying infantry, anti-tank guns and artillery, the H35’s inflicted heavy losses on the Red Army’s armour while taking very few of their own. By the end of the Winter War, the H35-equipped Erillinen Pansaaripataljoona remained in existence and by this time formed part of the 23rd Panssaridivisoona. The H35’s would be phased out of armoured combat units over 1941 and 1942, replaced with Finnish Patria-built tanks.

Other H35/39s also saw action under foreign colors.

Three H35’s were (as well as three R35) to the Polish Bureau of Technical Studies of Armored Weapons for trials sent in July 1939. In September 1939 these were integrated into an ad hoc unit commanded by Lieutenant J. Jakubowicz where they fought as part of the Dubrno task force. Two were sold to Turkey in February 1940.

Renault AMR 35 (187 built 1936-1939)

The AMR (Auto Mitrailleuse de Reconnaissance) 35 was not ordered by the army. When the AMR 33 hadn’t even reached production stage, Louis Renault took two prototypes and completely overhauled them, starting in February 1934. Trials indeed showed the weight distribution – due to a forward-mounted engine – was a serious issue, and he addressed it first by placing a new, more powerful Nerva Stella 28 CV, Renault sport coupé regular engine. Changes were made accordingly to the transmission, because the drive sprockets were maintained at the front. This also considerably lowered the noise inside the fighting compartment. The ventilator and exhaust pipe were also shifted to the rear. The weak suspension of the AMR 33 was also completely changed and tested on a third prototype made of bolted boiler plates in September 1934.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... _35_Z2.jpg
Renault AMR 35 ZT2 tank

During the first trials at Vincennes, speeds attained were up to 72 km/h (44 mph), an impressive feat for any tank of that time with such a small engine. Louis Renault did not intend to support the cost of upgrading the production line, however the army was impressed, and General Flavigny insisted these changes be made. Cavalry officers noted that the engine was perhaps too delicate for military service and later asked for a sturdier one. Therefore, the second prototype was fitted with a 432 22 CV four-cylinder bus engine. Top speed was still 63 km/h (39 mph), with a weight of 5.03 tons. It was subsequently accepted into service as the AMR 35 and followed the AMR 33 on the factory line, sanctioned by an official order on July, 3, 1934.

Design of the AMR 35

The initial plans introduced a specific command vehicle fitted with a AVIS-1 turret (“Atelier de Vincennes”) armed with a 7.5 mm (0.295 in) machine-gun and equipped with a top observation hatch. The regular vehicles would be fitted with an AVIS-2 turret and a 13.2 mm (0.52 in) machine-gun. But these plans were dropped although the turret models were accepted. 100 were ordered including 8 command vehicles, factory designated ZT (this was purely chronological, without meaning). Changes compared to the AMR 33 were considerable. Despite relatively similar internal accommodations and equipment, the similarities ended here, as the engine and transmission were relocated and the suspension was brand new. The AMR 35 was larger and almost 1.5 tons heavier (6.5 vs 5 metric tons). It was assembled with armor plates riveted on a frame, ranging from 13 mm (0.51 in) for all vertical plates, 9 mm (0.35 in) for the glacis and sloped plates, and 5 mm (0.2 in) for the top and bottom. This meant it was better protected than its predecessor.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 35_01.jpeg
Renault AMR 35 ZDT1

The driver sat to the left and at his right was placed a large ventilation grill. The commander turret was placed offset to the left. Eventually two turret types were used on the ZT-1, recognizable by their shape and armament. The 7.5 mm (0.295 in) armed AVIS-1 (Atelier de Vincennes turret) was octagonal and could receive an extra machine gun on a small AA mount on top of the turret. Normal provision was 2250 rounds. The AVIS-2 was fitted with a Hotchkiss 13.2 mm (0.52 in) heavy machine-gun. In battle the 13.2 mm gun, despite its ability to penetrate 20mm steel at 500m, proved to be incapable of defeating even the German armored cars, its bullets being deflected by their sloped armour. Radio command versions received a ER 29 model, operated by the commander. The suspension was of the new type also used for the light tank R35, and was quite heavier and much sturdier than the previous design. It could, in theory, take twice the load it was intended to. It comprised a sprocket and idler of similar types, retained from the AMR 33 but with the spoke intervals filled for better strength, the sprocket just receiving dents. There were also four paired all-metal roadwheels resting on independent bogies front and rear, and a central twin bogie. All three were horizontally sprung with large rubber cylinder blocks. The central ones counted five smaller rubber cylinders separated by steel discs, acting as shock dampers. The track was 22 cm (8.66 in) wide and was supported by three return rollers. As shown at Vincennes, the AMR 35 could ford 60 cm (2 ft) deep rivers, cross 1.7 m (5.6 ft) wide trenches and climb a 50 cm (1.6 ft) obstacle or 50% slope.

The Renault 447 22 CV four-cylinder 5881 cc petrol engine was capable of giving the 6.5 ton tank a top speed of 55 km/h (34 mph) and average top speed of 40 km/h (25 mph), making it the fastest French tank of the day. The engine had a max output of 85 hp at 2200 rpm. Fuel capacity was 130 liters. Transmission used a Cleveland differential, with single dry plate type brake with four gears forward and one reverse. The Zénith carburetor and Scintilla Vertex magneto allowed it to start at temperatures well below zero.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 35_02.jpeg
Renault AMR35 tanks on parade

AMR 35 Production

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... _zt2_1.jpg
Renault AMR 35 ZT2 with turret mounted 25mm

The first order asked for the delivery of ten pre-series vehicles in March 1935, but it was postponed in August. Due to a bad financial situation and strikes Renault eventually refused the second order for fifty tankettes, but accepted an order in April 1936 for only thirty others. There were coordination issues with the subcontractors as well, Schneider for the armor plates and empty hulls and Batignolles-Châtillon for the AVIS-2 turrets. By August 1935 trials at Satory had already led the army to ask for a change to the gear ratio and even refused the twelve vehicles delivered in September. These were returned for modifications and were accepted in October 1935. The first entered service on the 22nd of April, 1936.

By June 1936 seventy-six AMR 35s had been produced. However exercises showed serious reliability issues due to weak mechanical parts, including the Cleveland differentials not being suited for such speeds. In 1937, production almost stopped to allow the refitting of 92 vehicles, but the problems with the differential persisted, some being replaced up to five times in a short period. By August 1937 a second and third series were started, and seventy-five were delivered by the end of 1938. Most were now equipped with a synchromesh gear box and reinforced chassis girders, but reliability issues persisted until May 1940 and availability was poor. In January 1939 only 123 were reported serviceable, while the others were in repairs. In 1936 it had been envisioned to replace obsolete Renault FTs in service throughout the colonies with Renault AMR 35 ZT-4s, equipped with FT turrets. But this was given low-priority and of a total order of 56 vehicles only 40 had been completed when France surrendered. Another variant was the AMR 35 ADF (Renault YS), used for artillery observation, and equipped with advanced telemetric systems.

The AMR 35 in action

In May 1940 178 AMR 35s equipped the French Army. Tactically they operated in three squadrons for each DLM (“Division Legere Mecanisee”), and two squadrons for each DLC (light cavalry divisions). Tactically, and contrary to their acronym, they were used as fighting vanguard units, covering the infantry rather than for reconnaissance, a role already taken by the Panhard 178 and Somua-Gendron armored cars. In the Battle of France the AMR fared very badly being both poorly armed and armoured. The one main advantage of the AMR was its speed; it was the fastest French tank of its day and faster than all the German light tanks. However travelling at high speed cross-country played havoc with the poorly designed suspension which quickly wore out. During the campaign, more AMR’s were lost to mechanical trouble than to enemy action. Their actions are not known with precision, but their fate is shared between vehicles destroyed in action (due to poor armor and armament), abandoned due to the lack of gasoline or because of mechanical failure, mostly coming from the differential, transmission or more commonly because of suspension failure.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... -33-05.jpg
German soldier posing in front of an abandoned French light tank AMR 35 (№ 87363) of 5 RDP (Régiment de Dragons Portés) – the fate of much of the French Armoured Force of 1939/1940

Next Post: The Renault R35/R40, Somua S35 and the Char B1 bis
Last edited by CanKiwi2 on 23 Oct 2014, 19:31, edited 1 time in total.
ex Ngāti Tumatauenga ("Tribe of the Maori War God") aka the New Zealand Army

User avatar
CanKiwi2
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 26 Nov 2010, 16:48
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: What If-Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

#673

Post by CanKiwi2 » 23 Oct 2014, 19:13

Renault R35 & R40 (1,690 built between 1936-1940)

Until 1935 the little vintage Renault FT had been the staple of the French tank force. It was clear by 1932 that the new Renault tanks developed from the NC27 were not sufficient for the task demanded from them. They were too heavy, complex, costly and not suited for mass-production. The original requirements dated back to 1926 and asked for a “char d’accompagnement” (support tank) that could replace the FT and still operate in the same manner. However, with increase in AT gun caliber and velocity, the emphasis was put on protection. In early 1933 Hotchkiss proposed a solution, with an affordable small tank which turned the tables. But instead of purchasing these, for political reasons and due to the contract size, other contractors were in August 1933 asked to present their own model. Fourteen responded, ranging from automotive companies to small armories.

Renault, badly wanting the contract, rushed out a prototype which was ready when a further new specification was issued on June, 21, 1934. The new specification asked for an increase of armor from 30 to 40 mm (1.18-1.57 in). Renault could not revise the design on time and nevertheless presented its ZM prototype to the Commission de Vincennes on 20 December 1934. The model performed well, but was sent back to the factory for add-on armor and mounting the new APX (Atelier de Rueil) cast turret in April 1935. Tests were then resumed when, due to growing tension caused by the swift and massive German rearmament, the commission awarded a contract for 300 of the new “R35″ tanks on 29 April 1935. This was even before the model could be perfected by Renault for pre-production. By 4 June 1936, the first deliveries were being tested and modifications performed during production. The hollow hull price was 190,000 FF, but with engine, mechanical parts, the turret and modifications, rose to 1,400,000 FF (the equivalent of 32.000$ at the time). Contrary to the Hotchkiss H35, the R35 was also produced for export.

The cast APX hexagonal turret had a 30 mm thick domed rotatable cupola with vertical vision slits (the highest point of 2.13 m) and had to be either hand cranked or moved about by the weight of the commander, the only other crew member. There was sometimes unofficially a seat installed for him but he most often stood. The rear of the turret had a hatch that hinged down that could be used as a seat to improve observation. The earliest vehicles were fitted with the APX-R turret (with the L713 sight) mounting the short Puteaux 37 mm L/21 SA18 gun (the first batches were removed from FT 17 guntanks which were then rebuilt as utility vehicles) and the 7.5 mm Châtellerault fortress machine gun. The cannon had a very poor armour penetration: only 12 mm at 500 metres. Afterwards the APX turret with the same cannon but the improved L739 sight and the standard Châtellerault 7.5 mm MAC31 Reibel machine gun was used because of delivery delays of the original weapon. There were also so many delays in the production of the turrets that after the first 380 hulls had been produced in 1936 and only 37 could be fitted with a turret, production was slowed down to 200 annually. The 7.5 mm machine gun’s spent cartridges (from a total of 2,400) went down a chute through a hole in the floor. The tank carried 42 armour piercing and 58 high explosive rounds.

Due to the deterioriating international situation, the total number of units ordered rose to 2,300 by 1939. As a result of the frequent delays experienced by APX in manufacturing the turrets, by 1936 Renault had succeeded in delivering only 380 hulls, while only 37 turrets were available – the annual delivery rate fell to just 200. By 1 September 1939, only 975 R35’s had been delivered to the army out of the 1070 produced. They only just replaced most of the units that had been equipped with the Renault FT’s, but crews still needed a few weeks to retrain. In consequence, by May 1940 there were still eight battalions of FT’s operational due to the lack of trained men. By June 1940, 1,601 R35’s had been produced for the Army. Out of this number, 245 had been exported: Poland (50), Turkey (100), Romania (41) and Yugoslavia (54). Production ceased after the capitulation of France.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... r35-03.jpg
Renault R35 Tanks

The Renault R-40

Due to insufficient tests before production, it was quickly apparent to the receiving units that the R35 suspension was unreliable and experienced many failures. Work started in 1939 at AMX (the new name for the Renault tank department since 2 December 1936) to devise a better system, which could be fitted into the existing production run. This new system mounted twelve wheels in six pairs suspended by large vertical coil springs. These were protected by armored side skirts. The engine was upgraded to a more powerful model, while the hull was lengthened at the rear. The turret was the new APX-R1 cast model with a L767 sight, mounting a long barrel 37 mm (1.46 in) L/35 SA38. Last but not least, a radio was fitted. The new gun was capable of defeating 40 mm (1.57 in) of armor at 500 m (1640 ft).

The R40’s began to replace the R35’s after the 1540th unit. Only a few were delivered in time. The reconstituted Polish 10th Armored Cavalry Brigade in France was the first unit to be equipped with the new tank. At the same time, from 1939, some R35s were re-equipped with the new APX-R turret and the long-barrel 37mm. These were known as the R35 modifié 39, but only a few were converted and allocated to to unit commanders. AMX also produced quantities of steering tails prior to the war to improve their trench crossing capabilities. These were not always fitted.

The R35 bears a strong resemblance to its rival, the Hotchkiss H35. They shared the same APX turret, the three-module hull construction and placement for the driver and engine. However their dimensions differed, as well as the placement of the hull casemate, placed further to the rear for the Renault and, most obviously, the drivetrain. The hull, as stated, was made of three main prefabricated cast sections bolted together, while on the H35 these were welded. This helped improve Renault production times. Everything else was welded-on. Maximum thickness on the glacis was 43 mm (1.69 in), and 40 to 30 (1.57-1.18 in) on the hull lower sides, rear and engine deck. The turret itself was made of hard cast iron, 30 mm (1.18 in) thick.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... lt-R40.jpg
The Renault R40 was the final variation of the R35. It was developed by the Atelier de Construction d’Issy-les-Moulineaux (AMX) which introduced a brand new and better suspension that consisted of 12 pairs of small road-wheels on each side mounted in pairs, vertical coil springs, and protective skirting plates. This vehicle mounted the long barreled 37mm SA38 L/33 gun in the APX-R1 turret and had an AMX crossing tail.

The running gear was based on the one used for the light cavalry AMR 35 tank, with five double roadwheels encased in two sets of bogies and another single one at the front. All three were suspended by massive horizontal coil springs, with characteristic rubber ringlets. The drive sprocket was at the front and idler at the rear. The tracks reposed on three rubberized return rollers.

The tank used a crew of two. The driver’s position was offset to the left and the commander/gunner was in the turret behind. The final drive and differentials were in the nose. The driver had a Cletrac differential with five gears and steering brakes at his disposal. He had two hatches and one periscope for vision. The Renault V-4 85 hp engine was at the right rear, with a self-sealing 166 liter gasoline tank on its left. On final production tests, practical top speed was measured as 20 km/h (12.4 mph), which could fall to 14 km/h (8.7 mph) on soft or bumpy terrain. Fuel consumption was 212 liters/100 km off-road, but that was not believed to be a problem since it was believed 50 km (31 mi) was more than sufficient for a real breakthrough on a static front.

The turret received a dome-like rotatable cupola with vertical vision slits. It was free running on a ball track ring, either traversed by the weight of the commander or cranked more precisely for aiming. The commander normally stood on the tank floor. As was customary in French practice, the turret had a rear hatch that could be hinged down, allowing the commander to sit on it, legs inside, for external observation. The early turret model was the APX-R, equipped with a L713 sight, mounting the short barrel 37 mm (1.46 in) Puteaux L/21 SA-18 and a coaxial 7.5 mm (0.29 in) Châtellerault fortress machine-gun. This main gun was effective only against concrete fortifications at relatively short range, as muzzle velocity was only 300 m/s (984 ft/s). At best only 12 mm (0.47 in) of armor could be defeated at less than 500 m (1640 ft). Once again, it was a tactical limitation. The R35 was never intended to deal with other tanks. Normal provision of ammuniion was 72 AP and 58 HE rounds plus 2400 machinegun cartridges.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... ank-08.png
Renault R35 tanks in the field

At the time of the German attack on France, the French Army had 900 R35’s in service, then the most numerous model available. According to French military doctrine it was to be used only for direct support of infantry. However, its gun proved able to defeat Panzer I and IIs, while the frontal armor could withstand a direct hit from the standard 37 mm (1.46 in) gun. These were strictly to tank units without other organic components, and only committed to infantry support in close coordination with infantry units. However, in May, when it was clear that doctrine was failing the test of battle, 135 R35’s were allocated to a newly formed 4th DCR (Division Cuirassée de Réserve) while others reinforced the 2nd DCR. Later, 300 tanks from the materiel reserve were also allocated to these new units.

The majority (843) of R35s fell into German hands; 131 were used as such as Panzerkampfwagen 35R 731 (f), issued to panzer units and mainly used for security duties or driver training, or used on armoured trains; most were later rebuilt as artillery tractors and ammunition carriers after removing the turret. Others were converted for use as tank destroyers. Some of the tanks that Germany captured were given or sold to Germany’s allies (124 to Italy for example).

R35 Exports – Poland

In 1938, the Polish Army bought two R35’s for tests by the Office of Armored Forces Technical Research. The tank did not meet Polish requirements, neither did the Hotchkiss H35. The Polish Army wanted to buy the SOMUA S35, but the French government did not give its consent. In April 1939, due to the impending conflict with Germany and the lack of opportunities to increase production of the 7TP, 100 R-35’s were ordered. The first batch of 50 (including three H35’s) wer delivered in July 1939, and were given to the 12th Armored Battalion in Lutsk. In September, this unit formed part of the 21st Light Tank Battalion, entrusted with the defense of the border with Romania. Others were incorporated into the composition of Group “Dubno” which took part in the battles against the Germans at Strumiłową and the Soviets at Krasne. 34 tanks of the 21st Light Tank Battalion crossed the border into Romania on 18th September and were interned.

R35 Exports – Finland

After the Polish capitulation, a Polish cavalry unit was raised in France (the 10th Armoured Cavalry Brigade / 10 Brygada Kawalerii Pancernej / 10e Brigade de cavalerie blindée polonaise). When the Soviet Union attacked Finland, the 10th Armoured Cavalry Brigade under the command of General Stanisław Maczek was brought up to strength in both men and equipment, being made up of two tank battalions, two strong motorized cavalry squadrons, one motorized infantry battalion one anti-tank battery, one anti-aircraft battery with engineering, signals, transport and support units. The two tank battalions were equipped with a total of 120 Renault R35’s. The Brigade was dispatched to Finland in February 1940 but with much new equipment that many Polish soldiers had no idea how to use.

Some 115 more Renault R35’s were taken from the Material Reserve and shipped as Aid to Finland together with the Brigade (these tanks were used to hastily equip two further Finnish Panssaripataljoona). Training was carried out after arrival in Finland, with the Brigade forming a part of the rather ad-hoc 23rd Panssaridivisioona (“Marskin Vasara – The Marshal’s Hammer”). The 10th Brigade fought well on the Karelian Isthmus and would end the Winter War on the outskirts of Leningrad.After the Winter War ended, General Maczek and his men eventually returned to the UK, leaving their surviving R35’s behind for the Finnish Army.

In the UK, the Polish 10th Brigade formed part of the 1st Polish Armoured Division, which was placed under General Maczek’s command. The 1st would return to Finland in late 1943 with rather more modern Sherman tanks and American-supplied equipment, after which they would fight their way down the coast of the Baltic and into Poland under overall Finnish command. General Maczek and the 1st Polish Armoured Division would lead the offensive that broke through German lines and relieved the besieged Polish Home Army forces in Warsaw after the Warsaw Uprising in August 1944. The 1st would spend the rest of WW2 ensuring Polish territory remained Polish, a bitter and ruthlessly fought internecine and largely clandestine struggle against the NKVD and the Red Army which resulted in Poland retaining its pre-WW2 borders in the east.

R35 Exports – Yugoslavia

The kingdom of Yugoslavia ordered and obtained 45 R35s in April 1940, where they formed two brigades. One of these saw heavy action against the Germans around Belgrade. Surviving ones were re-used by the Independent State of Croatia, which fought alongside the 11th Panzerdivision on 13 and 14 April 1941. After that, they formed the Croatian 11 Dalmatinska udarna brigada (Dalmatian brigade) which fought against partisans.

R35 Exports – Romania

Romania’s rearmament plan was in full sweep in the early 1930’s when the last Renault tank was tested. The Romanian government investigated acquiring a licence to produce 200 R35’s locally. However, with French rearmament being given priority, as a stopgap measure, forty-five R35’s were sold and shipped in Romania in August and September 1939, making the bulk of the newly formed 2nd Armored Regiment. At the end of September 1939, an unexpected 34 Polish R35s from the 21st Light Tank Battalion retreating before the Germans crossed the northern border. These were interned and bolstered the strength of the 2nd Armored Regiment. Although these were used as is by the Romanian army, 36 were converted by Atelierele Loenida in 1943-44 with a high-velocity Soviet 45 mm (1.77 in) gun and saw action as the Vanatorul de Care R-35.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... Saumur.jpg
The R35 at the Musée des Blindés at Saumur in France

Somua S35 (430 built 1936-1940)

During WW1, the famous Cuirassier horse guards had their traditions shattered when it became obvious that the cavalry was obsolete in this new kind of warfare. When the first tanks appeared in 1917, new tactics in conjunctions with tanks proved there were still possible uses for cavalry. The French, as well as the British and Soviets, thereafter made the distinction between three kinds of tanks: those for the infantry and the cavalry, and lastly the heavy breakthrough tank, the “char de rupture”, like the FMC 2C. Plans for a new cavalry tank came in 1931, revised on 26 June 1934. A new and heavier model was specified, capable of resisting any antitank gun of the time. The responsibility was given to the St. Ouen Societe d’Outillage Mecanique et d’Usinage d’Artillerie (SOMUA). At that time the old French Army ban on cavalry having tanks was removed. Cavalry tanks were to be called “Automitrailleuses” (armored cars) in French service, like the AMR 33/35. The SOMUA was in a completely different – it was the first cavalry vehicle to be called a tank. It was classed as a fast medium, aimed not only at reconnaissance but also at contact and engagement with advancing enemy units.

Design of the S35

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... ua_S35.jpg
The SOMUA S35 was a French Cavalry tank of the Second World War. Built from 1936 until 1940 to equip the armoured divisions of the Cavalry, it was for its time a relatively agile medium-weight tank, superior in armour and armament to both its French and foreign competitors, such as the contemporary versions of the German Panzerkampfwagen III. It was constructed from well-sloped, mainly cast, armour sections, that however made it expensive to produce and time-consuming to maintain.

The hull was cast in four parts – a world first – and the turret was cast as well. The maximum thickness of the hull and turret armour was 47 and 40 mm (1.85/1.5 in) respectively. The turret was derived from the B1 heavy tank, but with an enlarged turret ring. The medium-barrel SA35 47 mm (1.85 in) in the turret was efficient against most German and Soviet tanks of the time and a mix of 90 AP and 28 HE shots was carried. There was also a coaxial 7.5 mm (0.295 in) Reibel machine gun with 2,250 rounds. All S35 units were scheduled to be equipped with radio, but as ER28 production never reached the required level, only one tank of five was equipped, despite the fact that many of them included an antenna. Crew was 3 – a driver, the tank commander/gunner and a radio operator. As with the B1, the commander was expected to direct the tank while also aiming, loading and firing the 47 mm SA 35 main gun.

Engineer Eugene Brillé worked on the suspension, inspired by the suspension used on the Skoda LTvz. 35, with eight road wheels on four bogies with leaf spring and a large torsion wheel. The initial tracks were 75 mm (2.95 in) wide, with 144 links, later 103 with enlarged pieces. The rear engine was side by side with two self-feeding fuel tanks. The crew was protected by a thick firewall bulkhead. The V8 SOMUA engine designed by engineer Javier-Sabin developed about 200 bhp and used a double filling tank system which at times caused some problems with inexperienced crews. Overall, the S35 was regarded as the most potent medium tank of its day. It is said that the US Ordnance studied the S35 for its construction aspects which helped later to design the Sherman.

Somua S 35 Production

The preliminary design was ready in September 1934, definitive plans in October 1934, just as construction began. The first prototype was ready in April 1935, undergoing successful trials until August of that year. The model was named after its first year of production. A preseries model was to be tested until January 1936 with the new APX1 turret, with production scheduled to start in March.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... _tank1.jpg
Souma S35

However, the S35 had several flaws, the first of which was a common issue among French tanks. The commander was still overloaded and the turret still lacked hatches, mostly due to budgetary reasons, which caused the same commander to sit completely outside of the turret in order to get a good view. Other flaws were maintenance-related. The cast-steel modules didn’t facilitate access to the suspension, which made maintenance and repair time-consuming. The cost per unit was high and only limited numbers of this excellent medium tank were produced. By the 1st of September, 1939, 246 had been delivered, and only 288 were in service in May 1940. But by June 1940 some 430 had been built. Production was then halted for the more advanced SOMUA S40. Due to French needs, a Polish order was declined. However, for political reasons a small Finnish order was accepted, with 50 Somua 35’s delivered to Finland in early 1939.

The Finnish Export Order – Somua S 35

In early 1939, for purely political reasons and in the face of some heated opposition from the French Army, the sale of 50 Somua 35’s to Finland was approved – out of approximately 150 which had been produced by that date. Worse from the French Army’s point of view was that these 50 were to be delivered immediately from stocks of the Somua S35 in hand and about to be handed over to the Army. Despite the at times vociferous opposition from within the French Army, the sale and handover was approved.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... a-s-35.png
Finnish Army Somua S35’s parading through Helsinki, Autumn 1939

The sale had it’s origins in the large French government loan (approximately $15,000,000 US Dollars) made to Finland in 1937 for the purchase of military equipment. While the financing was available, the Finns had been somewhat selective about the equipment and weapons ordered from the French, with the result being that by late 1938, there was still considerable unspent funding. The triumvirate responsible for Finnish defence spending had decided, after the bombshell decision on the fate of Czechoslovakia in October 1938, that Finland must accelerate her defensive armaments build up at almost any cost.

After some debate, the Finnish government had almost unanimously allocated additional funds to defence purchasing for the remainder of 1938 and very substantially increased the defence budget planned for 1939. The decision was also made that everything possible must be done to purchase critically needed armaments, including using the unspent loan financing still available from the sizable French and US Loans. The Somua S35, perhaps the best tank in the world at the time, was near the top of the defense shopping list, as it were. The Finns by now had some considerable experience in dealing with French politicians and it was obvious what needed to be done to ensure Finland got the wanted Somua S35’s.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... French.jpg
Finnish Army Somua S35 in Finland during the Winter War

Some judicious (and not inconsiderable) funds were expended on greasing the palms of French politicians and a number of influential voices within the French Army and within weeks, the sale had been approved. The end result was that 50 Somua S35’s were offloaded in Turku in April 1939, following which they would be used to form a second Erillinen Pansaaripataljoona (Separate Tank/Panzer Battalion). In Finnish hands, the Somua S35’s fought very effectively to their strengths. The one-man turret was a major limiting factor, but in the largely defensive fighting on the Isthmus in which the Somua S35’s would fight, this was not so much of a disadvantage as it would be in more mobile or offensive fighting. Also, the high velocity SA35 47 mm gun proved to be very effective against Red Army tanks.

The Red Army made no attempt to outmaneuver the Finns, instead relying on sheer numbers and massed wave attacks of tanks and infantry to overcome the Finnish defences. Unfortunately for the Red Army, this was the war the Finns had planned to fight, with doctrine, tactics and training geared to counter the Red Army’s tactics (or lack of them) and strengths. The result was an ongoing slaughter.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... ct1944.jpg
Two knocked out Finnish Army Somua tanks on the Pietari Front, August 1940

A company of Somua 35’s, well dug in and covering each other, with prepared positions to fall back on, equipped with effective radios and coordinating with well-trained infantry, anti-tank guns and artillery (and with close air support available, weather permitting) time and again decimated attacking Red Army forces before falling back to the next line of pre-prepared defensive positions and repeating. The Somua’s armour seemed impervious to the guns of the lighter Soviet tanks – and the Finns would use this to advantage time and again in their limited objective counter-attacks.

The Somua S35-equipped Erillinen Pansaaripataljoona emerged from the defensive fighting on the Karelian Isthmus over the winter of 1939-1940 virtually unscathed, although some losses did occur. Further losses occurred during the Spring 1940 offensive down the Karelian Isthmus and more in the fighting on the outskirts of Leningrad, as the photo on the right of two knocked out Finnish Army Somua S35’s illustrates. Again, in these actions the Finnish Army used their limited numbers of Somua S35’s carefully and to their strengths in well-coordinated actions which kept losses minimal. The surviving Somua S35’s remained in use with the Finnish Army until 1943, when they were retired from active service and used as training tanks after being replaced with US-supplied Lend-Lease tanks. The remaining Somua S35’s were retired completely and scrapped in 1946.

SOMUAs S35 and S40 in action in France

In May 1940, the bulk of the S40 force was allocated to the 1st Amy deployed in Belgium. Because of the lack of support and a weak organization when compared to the German Panzerdivisions, these units performed with high losses, but with some successes, most of them as a result of the S35’s armor and firepower. The battle of Hannut (May 12-14), the largest tank battle of 1940, occurred between six armored divisions, a clash of nearly 1,700 tanks and armored vehicles. Despite tactical victories at strong-points, it was a strategic failure for the French defence – the Germans systematically outmaneuvering the French, gaining local firepower superiority and with excellent communication and support. The French “by the book” tactics proved hopelessly obsolete.

On another occasion, on May, 17, Colonel De Gaulle’s 4th DCR, comprising many S35’s as well as Hotchkiss, Char B1 and Renault tanks, tried to stop the German advance at Laon and Montcornet. Although they gained momentum and local successes, even taking hundreds of German prisoners, the Luftwaffe and German Flak 88 mm (3.46 in) quickly deployed and used as antitank batteries for the first time in the war, crushed any further progress. Many S35s of the remaining forces fought to prevent three German Panzerdivisions from approaching Dunkirk. They were destroyed or ultimately abandoned, running out of ammunition and fuel. Later in June, other S35’s fought in Weygand’s so-called “strongpoints”, which were outmaneuvered once again, hammered by artillery and the Luftwaffe, and eventually forced to surrender one by one.

Somua S35’s after the fall of France

The remaining S35s, perhaps a hundred in all, which escaped to Vichy France, were allocated to the Vichy regime for police duties and most were transferred to North Africa. Most of the S35s remaining in occupied France were taken over by the Germans, some sources mentioning about 250 to 290. Most of these fought eventually on the Eastern Front where they were outclassed by Soviet KV-1s and T-34s. In December 1944, a single German unit was still equipped with a handful of S35s but by this time they were hopelessly outclassed.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... vice_1.jpg
Somua S 35 in german service, Panzerkampfwagen 35S 739 (f)

Char B1 bis (781 built between 1935-1940)

The Char de bataille was Col. Estienne’s concept. The French “father of tanks” wrote a memorandum (Mémoire sur les missions des chars blindés en campagne) in 1919, full of war experience, tactical reports and theoretical concepts of mechanized warfare, notably the proper use of different types in the offensive. The “char de bataille” (“battle tank”) was a heavy tank, near to the “char de rupture” or “breakthrough tank”, but the former was more a dual-purpose (infantry support and antitank) machine than the “char de rupture”. The latter concept gave birth to huge the FMC F1, with the sole purpose of terminating fortifications.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... lt-SRA.jpg
The prototype Renault SRA – on it’s first run over a 20km test course it began to fall apart

This duality was at the very core of the idea, shaping the many prototypes which followed in response. In 1921, the project was studied by a commission led by General Edmond Buat. First specification was for a low-cost self-propelled artillery, 25 mm (0.98 in) of armor and some machine-guns in turrets. Maximum metric weight was 30 tons. The project evolved and the machine-gun turret was equipped with an antitank 47 mm (1.85 in) gun. The main gun was a 75 mm (2.95 in) howitzer, in a low hull sponson. Industrial rivalry in the past had delayed several projects, including the FCM 2C, so Estienne was poised to create a formal agreement, submitted to the industrialists involved, free to share their plans, with the promise of no less 1000 orders. The Army was then to choose between the projects and various patents to compose their model, built by all. The four companies involved in the project were Renault (SRA), Schneider (SRB), FAMH (Saint Chamond) and FCM (Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée) with the FCM 21.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... /FCM21.jpg
The prototype FCM21 resembled a scaled dwn Char 2C

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 0/SRB2.jpg
The prototype Schneider SRB – six metres long, 228 centimetres high and 2,5 metres wide with a 47mm gun.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 0/FAMH.jpg
Prototype FAMH-tank

The four projects, one for each company, were submitted to the commission on 13 May 1924 at Atelier de Rueil. The twenty kilometer test course proved too much for them, showing the haste of their conception. The commission, over the supervision of Estienne, choose the SRB as a base. The SRB (Schneider project) weighed 18.5 tons, was 6 meters long (19.7 ft), with modified FT17 tracks, an antitank 47 mm (1.85 in) gun, Renault six-cylinder 180 hp engine, with hydraulic Naëder transmission from the Chaize company combined with a Fieux clutch and Schneider gear box, a speed of 18.5 km/h (11.5 mph) and a 370 l fuel tank giving a 370 km (230 mi) autonomy. This prototype then received many modifications, including the 75 mm (2.95 in) howitzer, new Holt-type tracks, the FAMH suspension, track tension wheel and a small gangway to access to the engine, with 40 mm (1.57 in) armor.

Design of the Char Bis B1

The design process of this modified SRB led to the 1926 “tracteur 30″. The plans were made by Schneider’s chief engineer, revised by the STCC (Section Technique des Chars de Combat). A mockup was built by Renault and three prototypes were to be built by the companies involved, with some modifications by the new 1926 “direction de l’infanterie”, changing it to a primarily infantry support tank. Modifications of the design included no AT weapon, lower speed, 22 tons max and radio for coordination. The three prototypes of the “B” serie (n°101, 102 and 103) were ready by 1929-30. They differed by their engine, clutch, transmission and served both for technological and tactical experiments, at the champ de Châlons, forming the “Détachement d’Experimentation” unit in 1931. They were extensively used in maneuvers until 1934, each time with some modifications by the Atelier de Reuil near Paris, to meet new requirements and army specifications. In the end, the B1 received its final turret, with the low velocity 47 mm (1.85 in), and coaxial Reibel machine-gun.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... totype.jpg
Char B1 Prototype N° 101, here in its original state with a small machine gun turret

Like the 1924 prototypes, it had a very large track, inspired by earlier famous British models. Armor also protected the suspension and the hull was riveted. The Renault inline 6 cylinder 16.5 litre petrol engine was chosen, which provided 9.7 bhp/ton, the power was transmitted by a double differential steering system, 5 forward, 1 reverse gear. Suspension was in the form of bogies with a mixture of vertical coil and leaf springs. Both early and final turret designs (APX1) were one-man only.

The Char B1’s original specification was for a self-propelled gun able to destroy enemy infantry and artillery. The main weapon of the tank was intended to be its 75 mm howitzer, and the entire design of the vehicle was directed to making this gun as effective as possible. When in the early 1930’s it became obvious that the Char B1 also had to defeat counterattacking enemy armour, it was too late for a complete redesign. The solution was to add the standard cast APX-1 turret which also equipped the Char D2. Like most French tanks of the period (the exception being the AMC34 and the AMC35) the Char B thus had a small one-man turret. Today this is typically seen as one of their greatest flaws.

Production: The B1

Production started in 1935, with Renault building 182, AMX – a Schneider subsidiary – 47, FCM 72 and FAMH 32. At 1.5 million francs apiece it was by far the costliest tank ever built en masse. Consequently, the original order of 1000 was reduced to 400. This further increased the tension between the two doctrinal schools which then had influence, one professing the use of a few, heavily armored battle tanks while the other advocated the use of swarms of light tanks. Almost ten light Renault tanks could be built for the price of a single Char B1. This exasparated men like Colonel Charles de Gaulle, who wanted to build more of the medium Char D2 at a third of the cost of the Char B1 bis, but armed with the same 47 mm gun.

As the few, even more expensive and now largely obsolete FCM 2C’s were kept out of real operations, the B1 became the main French “char de rupture”, a breakthrough tank held in specialized units. Operational capabilities were limited by their high fuel consumption, which in turn limited their range and condemned them to be used as a strategic reserve. In fact they formed the “Divisions Cuirassées de Réserve” (DCR) with limited strategic flexibility, intended for the second phase of the assault.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... orche.jpeg
Renault Char B1 bis cutout

The B1 had some shortcomings which had to be dealt with. An obvious lack of antitank firepower, with its low velocity L27/6 SA34 47 mm (1.85 in), which was only given APHE rounds (high explosive), capable of defeating 25 mm (0.98 in) of armor. The 75 mm (2.95 in) SA35 ABS L17.1 howitzer could fire HE and APHE rounds, only suitable against fortifications, with a poor traverse of only one degree. The aiming was given to the driver’s abilities with the Naëder hydraulic precision transmission. It was served by the radioman and the commander, who was also given the task of aiming and firing the turret 47 mm (1.85 in) gun. Communication was assumed by an ER53 radio telegraphy set, which worked with Morse code only. There was a small corridor, right on the rear, giving access to the ammunition reserve, next to the engine. The main access door was on the right side. The suspension system was rather complicated, made of three main bogies, sprung by vertical coil springs, each supporting two others, with a pair of road wheels. Production of the B1 was very slow. Only 34 machines were delivered until July 1937. By then, there was serious consideration given to an upgrade, which led to the B1 bis.

The upgraded B1 bis and B1 ter

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 00x194.jpg
Canon de 75 pour Char b1

The B1 bis was a modernization of the type, with an emphasis on anti-tank capability and protection. The armor was uprated to 60 mm (2.36 in), and a new APX4 turret with a longer barrel (L/32) SA 35 47 mm (1.85 in) gun was mounted. To cope with the added weight (now 31 tons) a new engine was fitted, a V12 Renault capable of 307 bhp (229 kW). 35 of the first series were retrofitted with the new engine. Autonomy was limited to only 180 km (110 mi). There had been some attempts of towing an extra 800 litre fuel tank, but it never realized. At cruise speed reserves were exhausted in just 6 hours. A larger left air intake was fitted. Ammunition storage was improved between the beginning and the end of the production, from 62 to 72 47 mm (1.85 in) rounds, but still, no AP shells. Production started in April 1937 and stopped in June 1940. By then, 377 had been delivered out of an order of 1144, but only 129 in September 1939. In exercises, the complex and advanced hydrostatic steering Naëder system proved difficult to use and costly, betrayed by other technical elements like a porous bronze housing and feeble seals causing significant losses of castor oil. The TSF was not practical as the tanks needed to be at rest to communicate. No tactical coordination was possible on the move. The costly turret was slower to produce than the hulls and three B1 bis were ultimately put in service without turret, as gun carriages.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... ter_01.jpg
Char B1 ter – only two prototypes were built

The B1 ter was a late attempt to radically improve the design. The main features were new 75 mm (2.95 in) armor welded with slopes to the hull, a new 350 bhp engine to deal with this added weight (36.6 tons) and some simplification in the design for mass-production in 1940, like the omittance of the Naëder transmission. A rearranged interior allowed a fifth crew member to be carried, as a mechanic. The main howitzer received better traverse, 5 degrees higher. Only two prototypes were ready by June 1940. Production never started.

The B1 had some additional flaws as well, which never helped its performances. High consumption issue, which was aggravated by any aiming of the main howitzer, was never solved. The absence of an efficient compass orientation and no internal communication system were also resented in operations. The one-man APX-1 turret was also cramped and ergonomy was poor and the feebly armored cupola had inadequate means of vision. Plus, the barrel pointing device was quickly deregulated. Many other issues were never solved because of the delays. The most serious was of course disastrous tactical management. B1s were “wasted” at individual defensive spots, many were simply outmaneuvered. But despite all this, the B1s were still, tank to tank, formidable machines, which proved very effective in single actions.

The Finnish Export Order – Char B1

As with the Souma S35 order, in early 1939, for the same (ahem!) reasons and in the face of the same heated opposition from the French Army, the sale of 60 Char B1 bis’s to Finland was approved – out of approximately 150 which had been produced by that date. As with the S35’s, these 60 were to be delivered immediately from stocks of the Char B1’s already in service with the French Army. And as with the S35’s, despite vociferous opposition from within the Army, the sale and handover was approved at the highest political levels.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... s-1940.jpg
Finnish Army Char B1 bis tank unit mobilizing, Autumn 1939

The Souma S35 was near the top of the Finns defense shopping list and the Finns actually wanted more of these than they were sold, but the numbers that even heavily-bribed French politicians were prepared to sell were limited and instead of the requested S35’s, the balance of the numbers requested was met by a French political decision to offer the Finns the Char B1 bis’s instead. The fact that the high cost of the Char B1 bis’s resulted in rather more in the way of bribes being paid may have also had a bearing on the decision but this was a situation where beggars could not be choosers. The end result was that in addition to the 50 Souma S35’s offloaded in Turku in April 1939, some 60 Char B1 bis’s were also delivered. These 60 Char B1 bis’s would form the third Erillinen Pansaaripataljoona (Separate Tank/Panzer Battalion) in service with the Finnish Army in the Winter War.

In Finnish hands, the Char 1b bis’s fought a lethal defensive fight. The tanks thick armour made it next to impervious to Soviet tank and anti-tank guns and it’s firepower (in particular the high-velocity 47mm gun) easily ripped apart the lighter Soviet tanks used in the early months of the Winter War. Again, as with the Souma S35, the one-man turret was a major limiting factor, but in the largely defensive fighting on the Isthmus, this was not so much of a disadvantage as it would be in rather more mobile or offensive fighting. The Finns had immediately on arrival fitted the French-supplied tanks with new-model Nokia voice radios and again, the vastly improved communction, when combined with the Finnish Army’s pervasive portable radio network, meant tight cooperation was possible both between individual tanks and between panssari units and the attached infantry, anti-tank batteries and artillery with which they operated.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... battle.jpg
Finnish Army Char 1b in battle

To the great benefit of the Char B1 bis-equipped panssaripataljoona, the Red Army fought the war that the Finnish Army had developed the doctrine to fight. Doctrine, solid preparation and training, training and more training paid off over those early weeks of defensive fighting as the Char 1B battalion slowly fell back down the length of the Isthmus to the Mannerheim Line, while repeatedly causing heavy casualties to the attacking Red Army armor. Through to the end of the war, the Char B1 would be the Red Army’s most feared enemy tank, a mechanized nightmare which time and again annihilated the Russian tank units with which it was engaged. The lack of Red Army survivors to pass the experience on meant that in general, the Red Army failed to learn any lessons from these devastating encounters.

In one defensive counter attack in January 1940 for example, a single troop of six B1’s, working together with two companies of infantry, artillery and close air support and fighting from carefully prepared defensive positions initially severely mauled a major Red Army assault. As the Red Army units pulled back, the Finnish tanks attacked frontally and completed the annihilation of an entire Red Army Tank Regiment, with Finnish infantry capturing six Soviet tanks which had been abandoned by their crews. These were then driven back to the Finnish lines as the Finns withdrew. All the B1’s were hit numerous times but suffered no major damage in the action. Time and again the Finnish Army would carry out such counter-attacks on slowly advancing Red Army units, taking advantage of the Red Army’s lack of cohesion between Tanks, Infantry and Artillery to inflict massive losses (and not incidentally, capturing much Soviet equipment in the process). Combining these tanks, excellent communications and the outstanding artillery fire control and artillery concentration methods used by the Finns, the Soviet spearheads found themselves smashed to pieces again and again.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... har-B1.jpg
Destroyed Finnish Army Char B1 – Karelian Isthmus – Summer 1940

Through the entire length of the Winter War and wherever they were found, the small number of Finnish Army’s Char 1B’s ruled the battlefield, only losing the occasional tank to heavy indirect fire from Soviet artillery. The Char 1B bis-equipped Erillinen Pansaaripataljoona emerged from the defensive fighting on the Karelian Isthmus over the winter of 1939-1940 virtually unscathed. Heavier losses occurred during the Spring 1940 offensive down the Karelian Isthmus where the heavily armoured Char 1B’s often took the lead in major attacks, as a consequence suffering rather more heavily than they had in the purely defensive fighting of earlier months. They also suffered rather more losses in the fighting on the outskirts of Leningrad. While they were used carefully and to their strengths in well-coordinated actions, losses were no longer minimal and by the end of the Winter War, only 15 of the 60 Char 1B’s acquired from the French remained in action.

The B1 bis in action with the French Army

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... inting.jpg
Char B1 bis and Hotchkiss H39

Despite its obsolete features, low autonomy and speed, the B1 was hard to stop. Its most formidable assets were its huge armor and good firepower, then unmatched in the west. The 60 mm (2.36 in) frontal armor was sloped, which mean it was near 80 mm (3.15 in) effectively. There were no real weak spots, and this invulnerability helped the B1 to close on targets, then destroy it with the turret 47 mm (1.85 in) or the brute force of the howitzer HE shells. For this reasons, the B1 was the Wehrmacht’s most feared enemy tank, a mechanized nightmare which caused heavy casualties by itself during the few fights during which it was engaged. The Germans never again experienced such losses in tank to tank combat until the fall of 1941, when encountering the Soviet KV-1 and T-34.

The Panzer I and II were absolutely harmless to the B1, and the Panzer III with its thin armor and 37 mm (1.46 in) gun, presented no serious threat the the French B1. As for the Panzer IV, it had only 20 mm (0.79 in) protection (Ausf. A, 30 mm (1.18 in) (Ausf. B and C) and 50 mm (1.97 in) (Ausf. D). It’s standard gun was the low velocity, short barrel 75 mm (2.95 in) KwK 37 , which was only effective at short range. For this reasons, the Panzer IV barely presented a real threat except in close, real time coordination with other vehicles. The same could be said about most German antitank guns of the time. The famous standard-issue “door-knocker” Pak 37 and even the Pak 40 were harmless. Contrary to common opinion of the time, the large ventilation exhaust panel was indirectly 55 mm (2.17 in) strong and never presented a weak point.

When the war broke out in September 1939, there were perhaps 180 operational B1 and B1 bis in all. They were used for the Sarre offensive, a short-lived burst without serious opposition, with a massive force of 41 divisions and 2400 tanks. The aim was to distract and divert German forces from Poland, France’s ally. After slowly penetrating 8 km (5 mi) into enemy territory, the entire force withdrew by order of General Gamelin into the security of the Maginot line. Several officers, including Henri Giraud and Charles de Gaulle, wildly protested. In effect, the Germans would have been in great danger and the Rhine was in reach. But Gamelin then was so confident about the famous fortified line that he saw any large-scale offensive to be a useless waste of material and men.

During the “Phoney War”, all B1s were gathered in massive infantry support divisions, the “division cuirassés de réserve” or DCR, which were tactically committed in the second phase of any assault, the first being led by cavalry tanks like the SOMUA S35. No tanks were sent in Norway, but the real deal began in May 1940. Three DCR, comprising each 69 tanks, were mobilized. Part of the 37th Bataillon de Chars de Combat, it comprised only B1s, were all rearmed with long-barrel SA 35 guns in May 1940 (turret designation APX1A). After the German invasion began, four new DCR of 52 B1s were constituted, as well as five Compagnie Autonome de Chars (autonomous tanks companies), with 56 B1s in all, plus 34 more in the 28 BCC (Bataillon de chars de combat). All B1s were reequipped with phonic versions of the ER53 radios, and command tanks received ER55 long-range radios.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... llotte.jpg
Captain, later Colonel & then General Pierre Billotte

B1 tanks were used (and lost) during the first phase of the operations, especially the first week. Most counter-offensives against Guderian’s “run to the sea” counted at least several B1s. Without air support these moves were doomed to failure against the quick and lethal Stuka attacks. Bad tactics of course brought these precious tanks to inept, hasty defensive “plugs” in the defensive lines, most of the time, ending in pure waste. In some case, the B1’s extraordinary sturdiness allowed some success, notably the counter-attacks at laon and Moncornet led by Col. De Gaulle, and stiff resistance like at Hannut and particularly Stonne. During these events, some individual B1’s blocked by themselves the German advance, inflicting horrendous casualties.

In a particular case, a single B1, Eure, commanded by Captain Pierre Billotte, attacked frontally and destroyed single-handedly thirteen Panzer IIIs and IVs, and then withdrew, while being hit 140 times. During two days, B1 tanks from the 3rd Division Cuirassée de Réserve literally ruled the battlefield at Stonne, destruction coming only due to German overwhelming attacks against single tanks and excellent communication, air strikes and indirect fire (by German howitzers). Some B1’s also broke down or ran out of ammunition and petrol. The last surviving B1’s were mixed with other tanks in support of the so-called “hedgehogs”, which fell one after the other in June 1940. By the 26th of June 1940, the campaign was over.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... 1-Eure.jpg
Char B1 Eure in action…

Two Stories about the Char B1 bis during the Battle of Stonne (15-18 May 1940)

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... e-2001.jpg
The Eure and her crew

Eure: The 1/41e BCC outflanks Stonne by the north-west but capitaine Billotte is hampered by several cliffs and important slopes. He has to move to the right, arriving in Stonne itself (from the north-west) before the battalion commander. The B1bis “Eure” arrives nose to nose with 13 German tanks of Pz.Rgt.8 (10.PzD) in column in the main street of the town. The first tank is only at 30m. Billotte orders the driver (sergent Durupt) to target the last tank with the 75mm SA35 hull gun while he destroys the first tank with the 47mm SA35 turret gun. The first shots destroyed simultaneously the first and the last German tank of the column, the others could hardly move. In several minutes, the B1bis “Eure” advances in the street and neutralize the 11 remaining tanks while numerous shells are hitting the armor of the B1bis without penetrating it. 2 Panzer IVs and 11 Panzer IIIs are reported as being destroyed (It is however not 100% sure that among them there were not several wrecks from the previous day). Billotte crosses the whole town and destroys also two 3.7cm AT guns next to the “Pain de Sucre”. The armor of the B1bis revealed later to be scattered with 140 impacts and gouges, none of the projectiles penetrated the armor according to the war diary of the 41e BCC. One can see here a kind of small reversed “Villers Bocage”. The “Eure” was scuttled on the 13th June as the drive wheels were unable to be used.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... r-2001.jpg
The “Ricquewihr” and her crew

Ricquewihr: On May 16, around 17h00, the Char B1bis “Ricquewihr” (commanded by Lieutenant Domercq) from 49e BCC attacks towards Stonne and encounters a German infantry column, which fires at the tank with infantry weapons including anti-tank rifles, without effect. The B1bis crushes its way through the German troops and pushes into the town defended by the Schützen-Regiment 64. When the German soldiers saw the bloody tracks of the tank they fled in panic and abandoned Stonne which remained unoccupied for the night. After that action Domercq was nicknamed “the butcher of Stonne” by his comrades. Ricquewihr will be heavily involved in the combat at Tannay over May 23-24. The B1bis “Ricquewihr” will be the last surviving tank of the 3e DCr, abandoned on June 18, at Sombernon north-east of Dijon, the weapons having been previously scuttled by the crew. At the end of 1942, Domercq (former commander of the tank and living in Paris) is in a pub on the Poincaré Avenue where a German tanker shows several photos to his friends. Domercq recognize his former tank, the “Ricquewihr”. The German explains that he is now the commander of this tank, that he has fired with it and that it was a good tank. He will be taking the tank and the rest of the crew to the Russian front.

B1/B1 bis fate: German and French service

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... har_B2.jpg
French Renault Char B1 bis tank, with German ‘B2′ modifications, owned by Bovington Tank Museum

The Germans captured hundreds of tanks, including 161 B1 bis tanks, later pressed into service as the Panzerkampfwagen B-2 740(f). Sixty were converted into flamethrower versions (Flammwagen auf Panzerkampfwagen B-2 (f)), and 16 for the 105 mm (4.13 in) howitzer. A single unit was equipped only with B1s, the Panzer-Abteilung 213, stationed in the British Channel Islands. One of these ended at the Bovington museum, repainted in French colors. 17 units in all received modified B1s, as they saw service in the Balkans (March-April 1941) and the Eastern Front, where their armor and armament initially proved well-adapted against Russian heavy tanks. By 1944, they were all gone.

Those stationed in France took part in the defense of Normandy, and others were stationed in support of the German units defending Paris. B1s were also part of the 13th Dragoon Regiment, which took part in operations in Alsace and Southern Germany. They were stationed after V-day in the French occupied zone, until the unit was disbanded in 1946.

Surviving Char B1’s

Today 11 vehicles survive, 1 Char B1 and 10 Char B1 bis. The last surviving Char B1 can be seen at the “Association pour la Sauvegarde du Patrimoine Historique et Militaire” (ASPHM), near Strasbourg, in France. It was previously at the Fort de Seclin. It is in a bad condition, with parts like the main gun missing. It was salvaged from a firing range, but will be restored by the owner.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... Seclin.jpg
The only remaining Char B1 at the Fort de Seclin, near Lille (France)

Ten Char B1 bis tanks can be seen in various places in Great Britain and in France: 1 at the Bovington Tank Museum , 3
in the Musée des Blindés in Saumur, France. One is a monument in the town of Stonne, France, and 3 are owned by the ASPHM while a further 2 are on display at the 501st-503rd Tank Regiment at Mourmelon-le-Grand, France.

Next Post: German Tanks of the 1930's
ex Ngāti Tumatauenga ("Tribe of the Maori War God") aka the New Zealand Army

User avatar
CanKiwi2
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 26 Nov 2010, 16:48
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

A final note on Czech Tanks and Finland – the Patria M/42 Va

#674

Post by CanKiwi2 » 14 Nov 2014, 12:34

Feeling guilty as I am for not having posted anything for quite a while (work, dammit), here's another installment that comes out of sequence. There's posts on German, Russian, Czech and Finnish tanks to come, and this is the penultimate "Finnish Tanks" post. I kind of got hooked up on finishing this one so forgive me..... and if anyone has any suggestions on edits, I'm wide open.... :)

A final note on Czech Tanks and Finland – the Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi

Between the end of the Winter War in late 1940, and the re-entry of Finland into WW2 as one of the Allies fighting against Germany, Finland introduced the Czech/Finnish-designed and built Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi into service. One of the main contenders for the “best tank of WW2″, the Valkoinensusi was a lethal weapon when fought to its strengths. This is the story of Finland’s Main Battle Tank of the last years of WW2.

By the end of the Winter War, it was obvious that the Finnish M/39 Panssarinhävittäjä, whilst a capable armoured fighting vehicle, would all too soon be outclassed by the heavy Russian tanks that had begun to be seen in small numbers in September and October 1940. In addition, the M/39 Panssarinhävittäjä was more of a tank destroyer, suited to the defense but not to the tactical offensive that was at the heart of Finnish war-fighting doctrine. It was an effective armoured fighting vehicle on the defensive (and indeed, would remain in production until 1945 and in service well into the 1950’s with the Finnish Army) but it was not the tank that the Finnish Panssaaridivisoona’s doctrine called for.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... kraine.jpg
Finnish Army Patria M/39 Panssarinhävittäjä

Likewise, the Patria M/38 Sotavaunut, based on the same chassis and hull but with a Swedish-built turret, had an outclassed 37mm gun that could do nothing against the heavy frontal armour of the newer Soviet tanks such as the KV-1 – although still effective from the sides or rear. The M/38’s fairly lightweight armour, while adequate in the Winter War, could be shredded by the new Soviet tank guns that had been encountered in the last weeks of fighting (and indeed, by the Finnish Army’s own 75mm anti-tank guns) which did not bode well for the future. Likewise, the Bofors 37mm gun, the main armament of the Sotavaunut M/38, could do nothing to the prototype Soviet T-34 tank’s thick, sloped armor plate (although side or rear shots were still effective – but much harder to get in position for). Conversely, the high velocity Bofors-Tampella 76mm gun with which the Patria M/39 Panssarinhävittäjä was equipped had proved itself quite capable of taking out the new Soviet tanks.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... _m42-2.jpg
Patria M/38 Sotavaunut – the mainstay of the Finnish Army’s tank force in the Winter War

One result of the immediate post-war reviews that were completed within weeks of the war ending was a recommendation to urgently develop a more capable, better protected and better armed tank capabe of taking on the new model Soviet tanks on an equal footing. This was without any doubt inspired by the latest model Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks encountered in the last weeks of fighting of the Winter War, many examples of which had been captured and which were available for study. A special commission, consisting of Patria engineers and the Škoda and CKD engineers and designers who had remained in Finland (or who had previously left to find refuge in Finland for various reasons) was formed to study the adversary and design a solution. However, it was understood from the start that to develop a completely new tank would take too long and be too expensive.

The design team was formed in December 1940 and given the goal of having a draft design ready by the end of April 1941. Study of the newest captured Soviet tanks together with almost a year of continuous combat against the Red Army had resulted in the identification of numerous areas where improvements were needed and/or could be achieved. Most critical amongst these were:
- Increased thickness of armour, particularly frontal armour but also side armour;
- Sloped armour, which would improve shot deflection and increase the effective resistance to penetration;
- Welded armour rather than riveted;
- Wider tracks to decrease ground pressure and improve mobility over soft ground and snow – something that the Finns, with their experience in building heavy tracked vehicles for use by the logging industry in winter, would exel in);
- A low centre of gravity and a low profile;
- A more powerful engine offering greater speed: one of the most frequent recommendations made by surviving tank commanders was that speed was essential: “Tanks must be fast. That, I would say, is the most important lesson of the war in regard to tank design….”;
- Preferably a diesel engine to increase survivability if hit;
- Larger fuel tanks giving an extended range, meaning less frequently required refueling;
- Mechanical reliability and serviceability: Engines and parts must be reliable and easy to service;
- Extended track life: average track life should be at least 2,000 miles (in the Winter War, the average track life of both the Sotavaunut M/38 and the M/39 Panssarinhävittäjä was approximately 500 miles;
- “Fire-power, armor protection, speed, maneuverability and cross-country performance are the essentials, and the best type of tank is that which combines these conflicting requirements with the most success. As low a silhouette as possible should come next….”;
- A turret for the Bofors/Tampella 76mm gun, the gun turret should come with a turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns);
- A power-operated turret to increase the speed of traverse and subsequent target acquisition;
- A 3-man turret with provision for commander, gunner and loader: one of the major lessons learnt from the French-supplied tanks used by the Finnish Army in the Winter War was that it was impossible for the commander to effectively act as the gunner at one and the same time (Suggested crew of 5 – Driver and radio-operator/hull machine gunner in the forward compartment, commander, gunner & loader in the turret);
- Every tank must be equipped with radio;
- External Intercom on the back of each tank for communication with accompanying infantry;

Other key considerations were:
- Ease of manufacture (as few manhours as possible)’
- Reuse of as much of the existing armoured fighting vehicle production line as possible to minimize retooling requirements;
- Dimensions restricted the height, width, and weight so that it could be transported via typical bridges, roads, railroads (and potentially landing craft) without any special accommodation. This was intended to aid the strategic, logistical, and tactical flexibility and mobility of the armoured forces;

The design team was made up of a small number of Patria, Tampella, Škoda and CKD engineers and designers (the Škoda and CKD engineers were largely refugees who had been working in Finland with Patria when Czechoslovakia was taken over by the Germans and who had elected to remain in Finland) together with selected Panssari officers and by April 1941 they not only had a completed design, they had built half a dozen wooden mockups plus one working prototype (built with soft steel). The tank, subsequently designated the M/42 Valkoinensusi, was based on a chassis that was an enlargement of the M/38 Sotavaunut / M/39 Panssarinhävittäjä with a conventional track design with a brand new turret modeled somewhat on those of the Soviet T-34. The tank would be powered by a 450-horsepower Finnish-manufactured Hispano-Suiza inline aircraft engine while the main gun was to be the Bofors-Tampella 76mm used in the M/39 Panssarinhävittäjä that had proven so effective in the Winter War. Armour was significantly thicker than with the earlier tanks and at 25 tons weight overall (for the initial design), with its wide tracks, good off-road mobility and powerful engine, the proposed M/42 Valkoinensusi promised to be a very capable armoured fighting platform.

One of the early issues for Patria when they first began building tanks had been tank turret construction, in particular the turret rings, an issue that was the partial origin of Patria’s Panssarinhävittäjä design – initiated when a major bottleneck was encountered with turret ring manufacturing. However, with the assistance of Škoda engineers, this issue had been resolved in late 1939 and by late 1940, Patria was able to manufacture their own turrets, no longer needing to rely on Bofors in Sweden to build these. With the expertise so painfully and lengthily acquired on turret design and build for the Sotavaunut M/38, Patria was able to come up with a vastly improved turret for the M/42 Valkoinensusi (and for this, the contribution of the Škoda and CKD engineers and designers should be gratefully acknowledged – Patria’s success was very much due to the whole-hearted contribution of the Škoda / CKD team’s industrial engineering expertise and knowledge).

Multiple objectives were set for the new turret – it had to be as low as possible, in line with one of the tank’s major design goals being a low profile overall. It had to accomodate three crew members (commander, gunner and loader), it had to have a powered traverse independent of the main engine and be capable of turning 180 degrees in 15 seconds. It needed to accommodate the Tampella-Bofors 76mm gun and ready ammunition storage needed to hold at least 60 rounds of main gun ammunition, with provision for further ammunition storage within the tank.The hull and turret should also be cast or welded, with no riveting and without a single vertical surface; the goal being to have no shot traps. A wooden mockup of the new turret was built early in the design process to assist with design decisions on the placement of internal components. One of the outcomes was that a turret basket was added to the rear of the turret (an additional basket was later added to the rear of the tank in order to allow 10 jerrycans of petrol to be carried, permitting range to be extended somewhat).

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-07.jpg
A wooden mockup of the Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi turret was constructed on an existing M/38 chassis in tandem with the design and presented to the Review Committee on 29 April 1941

With the 76mm main gun in mind, the size of the new tank design was increased overall to allow a larger (1820mm/182cm turret ring) 3-man turret, with provision for a loader as well as the gunner and commander. The larger turret was also redesigned to include a large back extension for added ammunition storage (to a total of 137 main gun rounds) and was designed with an integral turret basket (a rotating floor that moves as the turret turns). The large back extension to the turret also served as a counterweight to the main gun. The turret could be rotated either mechanically, or via an electric drive that ran independently of the main engine. While the turret crew main entry point was situated on the right side of the turret roof, experience in the Winter War had also demonstrated that one hatch in the turret was often insufficient for evacuation of the tank when it was hit so a second hatch was added besides the commander’s. An external pedastal-mounted Lahti 20mm cannon with a box feed was added to the turret for the tank commander to use while the main gun was paired with a coaxial 7.92mm heavy machine gun in the same mount (2,000 rounds of 7.92mm ammunition was also stored within the turret). Perhaps the greatest thing about this turret was its ability to depress the gun, the depression was 15 degrees giving it an insane hull-down capability which the Finnish tank crews would use to their advantage when fighting against the Germans through 1944 and 1945 (and now and then against the Red Army as well).

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-01.jpg
The ability of the M/42 Valkoinensusi to depress the main gun up to 15 degrees gave it an insane hull-down capability – and an ability to “snipe” from behind cover which Finnish tank crews grew to appreciate deeply in the fighting of 1944 and 1945

For reconnaissance and exterior viewing in battle, a rotary periscope was installed on the turret roof. Nokia Infra-red active night viewing equipment was proposed as standard. The active night vision for the gunner consisting of a Nokia infrared search light, and passive night vision optics for the driver, gunner and commander. The commander also had a passive night vision sight on the rotary periscope, featuring an image intensifier not unlike that used in night vision goggles. The combination of active searchlight and low level television gave the M/42 Valkoinensusi a night-fighting capability not matched in other tanks until the 1970’s, although its advantage was in the late ’70s was rapidly reduced with the increasing use of solid-state electronics and the quantum leap in microelectronics production beginning in the 1980s’.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... anther.jpg
Finnish Army Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi turret hatch with Infra-red night fighting device mounted. By mid-1944, almost all Finnish Army Tanks were also fitted with these Nokia IR systems, giving the entire Finnish armoured force an effective night-fighting capability, something the Finns used to full advantage.

Internal communication within the crew was performed thru an on-board Nokia communications system (or via light signals should the intercom go down). An external communications hookup was provided on the rear of the tank so as to allow easy communication with accompanying infantry. Provision was also made for three Nokia radios enabling Platoon, Company and Battalion communications to be maintained simultaneously by all tanks within a Panssaripataljoona. This radio network had only been in its infancy in the Winter War but its effectiveness had been well-proven, having been used to co-ordinate communications between head-quarters, air, armoured, artillery and infantry units throughout the fighting.

The radio network linking armoured command, observation and communications vehicles and radio equipped combat vehicles that had proven so effective in the Winter War was to be vastly improved on between 1941 and 1943. In the fighting of 1940, their radio network had given the Finnish commanders both a clear picture of the battlefield and the means to direct their troops as quickly and precisely as possible. This network allowed the panssari to penetrate deep behind enemy lines whilst maintaining constant contact with headquarters. It also allowed them access to the latest reconnaissance reports and to be deployed at a moments notice. Well trained panssari commanders were frequently given the freedom to exploit this advantage to the fullest extent and certainly, the rapid and fluid Finnish advances in 1940 would not have been possible without radio. The combination of wide radio distribution and thorugh radio training had proved invaluable to Finnish armoured units in 1940 and with the new tanks and armoured fighting vehicles with which the Panssaridvisoona were being re-equipped from 1942 on, it was intended to expand on these capabilities.

The hull was split into two parts by an 8mm thick armor plate with the crew compartment in the front and the turret set above it. The propulsion (engine) and fuel tanks were at the rear. The front compartment had two seats (driver to the left, radioman/hull machine-gunner to the right) with access for both of them to the turret. Both hull crewmembers had their own viewports in the hull, covered by armored shutters. Viewports were also present in the side armor for both crewmembers (without the shutters). These side sections with viewports could be opened and used as entry points for the driver and the radioman. The radioman/hull machine-gunner operated a 7.92mm mounted in the front hull on an independent mount with 2,000 rounds of ammunition. The engine compartment space was designed to be watertight so that the M/42 could be submerged and cross waterways (a snorkel was designed in for this purpose, giving the M/42 the ability to ford water to a depth of 1.7m / 5 ft 7 inches).

Overall dimensions of the M42 Valkoinensusi were:
- Length (hull only): 22 ft 6 in (6.87m)
- Width (hull): 10ft 9 in (3.27m)
- Height: 2.49m
- Combat Weight: 30 tons
- Performance: maximum road speed of 35mph
- Operational Range: 250 miles
- Tracks: 460mm wide, 0.68 kg/cm^3 ground pressure
- Vehicle to be designed to cross a 265cm wide ditch, wade in 120cm of water, and climb a 40 degree incline
- Main Gun: 76mm Tampella-Bofors with Tampella-Skoda 20 round autoloader
- Secondary armament: 1x20mm Lahti cannon, 2×7.92mm machineguns

Armour was strategically thickened to offer additional protection, while welding rather than riveting was used. The M/38 Sotavaunut chassis and hull had been widened and lengthened, the M/42’s tracks were also widened to keep ground pressure low (weight had increased to 25 tons overall), provide better traction and a larger 450hp engine was specified. Smoke and defensive grenade launchers were also added, along with a protective thin (in fact mesh) layer of spaced armor. The front and side armour was well-sloped and built only with a homogeneous steel glacis plate. The armor for the side hull and superstructure (the side sponsons) was much thinner at 60 mm). The thinner side armor was necessary to keep the overall weight within reasonable bounds, but it made the M/42 vulnerable to attacks from the side by all German and Soviet tank and anti-tank guns. Finnish tactical doctrine for the use of the M/42 Valkoinensusi thus emphasized the importance of flank protection. Finnish tank crews were well aware of the weak side armor and made unauthorized augmentations by hanging track links or spare roadwheels (or even fastening logs of wood) onto the hull sides;
- Hull front, lower: 100 mm @ 55°; upper: 160 mm @ 55° [lower: 80 mm @ 55°; upper: 120 mm @ 55°]
- Hull side, lower: 60 mm @ 90°; upper: 60 mm @ 65°
- Hull rear: 60 mm @ 60°, 60mm @60° twin side hinged doors (engine servicing/rearming/escape/)
- Hull top: 34 mm @ 0°, 4 mm @ 0° (ammo store)
- Hull bottom: 40 mm @ 0°
- Turret front: 180 mm @ 80°, [120 mm @ 65°]
- Turret side: 80 mm @ 69°, [80 mm @ 65°]
- Turret rear: 80 mm @ 70°, [80 mm @ 65°]
- Turret top: 44 mm @ 0–10°

Skirt armour 5mm thick would later be fitted to the hull sides. The curved turret and the mantlet shape gave added likeliehood of any shells hitting the turret being deflected. With the considerable extra weight that had been added, the chassis design was strengthened. The front was reinforced, shock absorbers replaced and steering gear substantially modified. A new track design substantially increased off-road traction. The Hispano-Suiza engine was fitted with direct injection rather than carburetors and an engine silencer was added. Together with a number of other cold-weather modifications, fuel consumption was lowered and the engine could cold start from -25º C. And engine warmer was also added for use in extreme cold.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... m_tank.jpg
Early concept design for the M/42 Valkoinensusi was drawn up by a small Skoda Team, later to be substantially modified as the design process continued….

Overall, the end result weighed in at just 30 tons, with a powerful engine giving a projected top speed of 35mph and with substantially widened tracks giving low ground pressure (a particular concern for snowy or swampy conditions), the new tank promised good off-road mobility, good speed and had reasonable armor protection. The welded armour was rather thicker than its predecessor (although crews would come to regard it as too thin), offering adequate protection to the crew without being excessively heavy (the designers had intentionally traded off protection for speed). The design was simple and straightforward, making it cheap and fast to build – and to achive this, numerous simplifications had been made to the design. It had also been designed to rapidly replace the Patria M/38 Sotavaunut on the Patria assembly lines at Tornio. On paper, at least, Patria had produced a very capable armoured fighting vehicle. A wooden mockup of the Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi was constructed in tandem with the design and presented to the Review Committee on 29 April 1941.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-11.jpg
One of the first Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi tanks to come of the production line being road-tested in 1942

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-12.jpg
One of the first Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi tanks to come of the production line being road-tested in 1942

The Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi’s Main Gun

The gun that gave the Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi its punch was a rather more modified version of the Tampella-Bofors 76mm that gave the M/39 Panssarinhävittäjä its firepower. In the Winter War, the firepower this gun gave the Finnish Army was devastating. By 1942/43, it was rather less so, but this would be restored with new ammunition, as we will see.

The main gun proposed for the M/42 Valkoinensusi was a Škoda/Tampella engineering team modified version of the Bofors 76mm in use on the M/39 Panssarinhävittäjä. The gun was the same, the main modification consisted of making the gun fully automatic with a drum feed capable of 15 shots per minute and using a new type of armour-piercing ammunition. The long barrel and large propellant charge for the new ammunition to be used gave a very high muzzle velocity, a flat trajectory and excellent armor-piercing qualities. The flat trajectory also made hitting targets much easier, since accuracy was less sensitive to errors in range estimation and increased the chance of hitting a moving target, though these same attributes made the gun a poor fire-support weapon using HE ammo. Indeed, the Valkoinensusi’s 76mm gun had more penetrating power than the main gun of the Tiger I heavy tank, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56. The AP-T projectile used initially had an overall weight of 7.2 kg and a muzzle velocity of 925 m/sec.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... v74-10.jpg
Tampella-Bofors 76mm gun assembly line, Tampella plant, Tampere

Average penetration performance established against rolled homogenous steel armor plate laid back at 30° from the vertical was:
- 100 m: 138 mm
- 500 m: 124 mm
- 1,000 m: 111 mm
- 1,500 m: 99 mm
- 2,000 m: 89 mm

To compensate for the wear of such rapid fire, a special compressed-air device had been designed which would clean the barrel after every shot. The weight of the gun, with it’s long barrel, was balanced by the rearward extension of the gun turret with added ammunition storage in the rear of the turret. The autoloader was proposed so as to ensure that the high velocity 76.2mm gun could fire so much faster than Russian / German weapons that an enemy target could be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of fire. On the other hand, this could also be somewhat of an issue as the main gun’s high rate of fire could use up all the ammunition in the autoloader (20 rounds in two bins of 10 rounds each) in less than two minutes. The tank itself would hold only 137 main gun rounds and given the high rate of fire, this could easily be expended in just a few minutes of combat. Also, reloading the autoloader could take up to 15 minutes if all rounds had been expended.

Debate on this subject was considerable. With the autoloader, 15 rounds per minute could be fired, while in manual loading, a rate of firing of around 8 rounds per minute could be achieved under favorable conditions with an experienced crew (one round each 7.5 seconds). There’s a considerable choreography involved in a manual reload – imagine that the loader would have to, in the confines of the turret and hull, under combat conditions, possibly while moving across country, reach to the rear stowage, pull out a 11 kg round from a magazine with one hand, get a grip on it, then turn so he could load the round and push it in. Getting to the reserve rounds under the floor and in the sponsons also required some intricate dance steps as the loader moved around to get the rounds.

However, this rate of fire would drop considerably under combat conditions and as the crew became increasingly fatigued. There was also of course the question of target acquisition. And then of course, after continuously firing rounds from tanks, after you get about 15 -20 shell casings laying/bouncing around/etc. on the floor, it gets really difficult for the loader to load more rounds and the turret to move or the gun to recoil safely, so there would have to be a pause just to clear the turret. But even at 8 rounds per minute the emptying of ready ammo racks and the obstruction of empty shell casings prevents tanks from sustaining this rate for any length of time. While the autoloader potentially enabled one crew member to be removed, reducing the crew from 5 to 4, a further drawback was seen as being that while replenishment of ammunition for the autoloader could be done from inside the tank, a complete reload of both bins generally took approximately 15 minutes.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-02.jpg
The Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi’s Main Gun was in fact one of the most powerful tank guns of World War II, due to the large propellant charge and the long gun barrel, which gave the round a very high muzzle velocity, a flat trajectory and excellent armor-piercing qualities.

The review committee took one look at the autoloader proposal, viewed the risk as far too high and in an unusual example of Finnish verbosity, took the designers to task for a “dangerously high-risk proposal”. The Finnish equivalent of a shit-storm erupted, with the two opposing viewpoints being put forward at length. However, Škoda and Tampella had already worked together to produce a working prototype and this was satisfactorily demonstrated. Tampella also had considerable prior experience with autoloaders from 1938-39 with the autoloaders designed and developed for the Wihuri ground-attack aircraft with their nose-mounted magazine-fed 37mm anti-tank gun. Extensive trials of the 76mm autoloader were carried out. The improved 76mm used a more powerful charge which allowed it to penetrate 138 mm (of RHA sloped at 30 degrees) at 100 m and 111 mm at 1000 m, which was considered excellent. This gun gave the Valkoinensusi a firepower advantage over the Russian T-34 (the key design objective), although the muzzle flash due to unburnt powder from the increased charge could leave crews momentarily blinded after firing. The blast also kicked up dust from the ground and often obscured vision for further firing.

The addition of a muzzle brake solved this problem by directing the blast sideways (with the added benefit of substantially reducing recoil. The “improved” Tampella-Bofors 76mm also featured a gyroscopic stabilized gun and sight. The stabilization was only in the vertical plane, as the mechanism could not slew the turret. The stabilizer was sufficient to keep the gun within 1/8th of a degree, or 2 mils while crossing moderately rough terrain at 15 miles an hour. This gave a hit probability of 70% on enemy tanks at ranges of 300 to 1200 yards. The utility of the stabilization is debatable; with some Finnish tank crews saying it was useful for its intended purpose, others only used the sights for stabilized viewing on the move. Some Finnish Army tank crews disabled the stabilizer.

In the event, after considerable and very heated debate, it was decided to proceed with the autoloader in production as the advantages in combat were seen to outweigh the disadvantages. The 76mm autoloader gun went into production in time to be used for the first Valkoinensusi’s to roll of Patria’s Tornio production line. The Valkoinensusi’s 76mm main gun was in fact one of the most powerful tank guns of World War II, due to the large propellant charge and the long gun barrel, which gave the round a very high muzzle velocity, a flat trajectory and excellent armor-piercing qualities.

Standard AP-T ammunition was manufactured by Ammus Oy, but going into 1944, the tanks were also supplied with a white phosphorus shell intended for use as an artillery marker to help with targeting. Once the war against Germany started, Valkoinensusi tank crews quickly discovered that the shell could also be used against the Tiger and Panther tanks (and Russian T34’s for that matter) — when the burning white phosphorus adhered to enemy tanks, their optics would be blinded and the acrid smoke would get sucked inside the vehicle, making it difficult or impossible for the crew to breathe. This, and the fear of the fire spreading inside the tank, would sometimes cause the crew to abandon the tank.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-03.jpg
The Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi in it’s final design iteration as production commenced… the profile was somewhat distinctive

In its final design iteration as production commenced, the Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi weighed 30 tons, was powered by a 450-horsepower Finnish-manufactured Hispano-Suiza engine giving a maximum road speed of 35 mph and a range of 250 miles. With a crew of 5, it mounted the Tampell-Bofors 76mm main gun with a 20 round autoloader, 2 x 7.92mm machine guns and an external Lahti 200 cannon. The M/42 Valkoinensusi retained some of the design features of the earlier Patria M/38 Sotavaunut and the Sotavaunut’s immediate ancestor, the Czech LT35, primarily centered around the chassis and torsion bar system and the general “look” of the hull, although overall size had increased considerably to around the same dimensions as the German Panther.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-13.jpg
In its final design iteration as production commenced, the Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi

Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi Production

The first mild steel prototype was produced by April 1941. An extensive and detailed review over the summer of 1941 was followed by further design modifications and the production of two further prototypes for August 1941, only one of which was fitted with a turret. The three prototypes were extensively and exhaustively tested and proved prone to a number of technical problems which were worked on. Likewise, many modifications were made to the interior layout, including much improved ergonomics. Nevertheless, the early consensus was that, even though fixes were needed for the problems identified, the new design had surpassed design specifications and expectations.

In June 1941, the Germans launched Operation Babarossa, the attack on the Soviet Union, an event that the Finnish military had been expecting for some time based on intelligence reports. The Finnish military had been partially mobilized over April and May 1941 in expectation of such an attack as at this point, the Finnish government and military command trusted neither the Soviet’s nor the German’s to respect Finland’s neutrality. Both Germany and the Soviet Union placed ongoing pressure on Finland, both economic and political, covertly and overtly, but Finland was determined to remain neutral. Without going into any further details at this point in the narrative, the outbreak of open war between Germany and the USSR resulted in a further large-scale mobilization of the Merivoimat and Ilmavoimat together with the Armeija. At the same time both Germany and the Soviet Union were repeatedly given notice of Finland’s intent to maintain its neutrality at all costs – a declaration that both sides reluctantly respected given their earlier encounters with Finland.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-06.jpg
A view of the prototype from the rear: a single prototypes was also constructed on an M/38 Sotavaunu chassis with a wooden mock-up turret and gun.

The outbreak of open war gave an added impetus to the drive to re-equip Finland’s armoured units and in July 1941, the Army placed an initial order for 400 M/42 Valkoinensusi’s (as the new tank was now officially designated) to be manufactured in 1942, while a further 750 were to be completed over 1943. Patria M4/2 Valkoinensusi production commenced in March 1942 after an increasingly frantic re-jigging of the production lines was finally completed. As the M/42 had been designed very specifically to rapidly replace the M/38 Sotavaunut on the assembly lines at Patria, the changeover moved ahead rapidly, actually managing to come in 4 weeks ahead of the targeted completion date – a miracle of sorts for almost any engineering project. Patria had taken advantage of the new design to streamline and improve workflow and production techniques in light of experience gained with the production of the Sotavaunut M/38 and the M/39 and manufacturing efficiency had been very considerably improved.

Potential bottlenecks existed with four major components – steel, suitable engines, the Tampella-Bofors 76mm main gun and the turrets. Without adequate supplies of these, production in suffient quantity would prove a challenge, as had occurred with the Sotavaunut M/38. The new M/42 Valkoinensusi was a formidable design, but with war between Germany and the USSR already underway and the fighting taking place close to Finland’s borders, there was an urgent need to introduce the M/42 into service regardless of obstacles.

The first bottleneck, steel, was addressed through the simple expedient of increasing the output of rolled plate steel from the Tornio Steel Mill. Casting of the tank hulls had been considered, and certainly by 1940 the Tornio Mills could have been used to produce large cast components. Castings, though, have certain inherent disadvantages. No matter how metallurgically sophisticated a nation is, the physics dictates that grain orientation cannot be controlled, and grain growth is mostly uncontrollable in large castings. Thus even the most elegant tool steel alloys are not particularly strong as raw castings, without a further hardening process to make a fine grain structure. Casting’s main advantages, once the tooling is built, are production rate and lower (not higher!) technological requirements. A casting facility–especially one that works with simple alloys–can be nothing more than a big building, an overhead crane and a furnace.

Rolled plate, on the other hand, may not be perfect, but it offers fairly good and consistent grain size, work hardening, and especially grain orientation. Welding of fabricated plate sections, if done properly, does not compromise these advantages. The gains from plate’s metallurgical advantages more than offset the small trigonometric differences in effective thickness from small angles of incidence of shell impact against angled sections of cast hulls and turrets. Sophisticated heat treating can be combined with rolling to make very strong steel. But good rolled plate requires a very, very expensive and complicated mill. Fortunately, the Tornio Steel Mill had been built in the mid-1930’s with this kind of high quality rolled alloy steel output in mind and by reducing exported amounts, sufficient rolled plate steel was available for M/42 and M/39 production.

Rolled armor is essentially cast armor which has been further worked and shaped, which aligns the grain structure which increases ballistic strength. Rolled steel armor is made by first pouring molten metal into molds and allowing it to cool and solidify into ingots. These big barrel-shaped pieces which come out of the molds are then pounded with hammers (BIG hammers) to form billets, which are then rolled at the rolling mill to become slabs, which can be sized in thickness to fit the tank design. They are flame cut to the profile of the desired tank part, then heat treated, then welded into the tank. Cast steel armor components bypass all that working, and are made simply by pouring molten metal directly into tank component shaped molds. They are removed from the molds, rough spots, risers and gate marks ground off, and heat treated. Then they are built into the tank.

Given their small manpower pool and the need to keep casualties down, the Finns opted for better quality armour plate albeit at a higher labour cost per manufactured tank. Very good armor may deliver three or four times the performance, inch for inch, of the best possible homogeneous casting and this was factored into the alloy steel specified for the M/42’s construction. The flexural strength and notch sensitivity of the metal are perhaps the most important characteristics that distinguish sophisticated fine-grained differentially cold-rolled high-alloy plate, with not only a hardened face but maximum toughness of the plate core and maximum ductility of the inner face (to resist spalling), from homogeneous hot-rolled plate or varying-characteristic cast sections of carbon steel with no heat treatment beyond surface carburizing. Sophisticated plate depends on the flexural strength of the plate core to contribute its local stiffness to the spreading of the incoming shock wave over a larger area, so that the inner face will experience a lower peak force. Notch sensitivity, of course, is relevant to whether the inner face of the armor stays in one piece under dynamic conditions.

Good armor has a hard outer face to reflect as much energy as possible and spread the remainder over as large an armor area as possible; a high-strength tough interior to resist deformation and convert kinetic energy to heat; and a ductile inner face to resist spalling due to the propogated shock wave and local deformation. When an AP round hits it, the armor undergoes tremendous local heating. If the AP round overwhelms the armor and penetrates, a sizable amount of armor metal is typically ejected into the tank interior ahead of the penetrating round. That metal is at least very hot and sometimes molten. It can have a much higher velocity inside the tank than the remnant velocity of the penetrating round. This spray of liquid steel generally ignites whatever is flammable. Also, having lost much of its kinetic energy penetrating the first armor surface, the projectile is likely to bounce off the inner face of the far armor surface and richochet around the interior to the detriment of the occupants within.

Bad armor is hard through. When an AP round hits it, a few large chunks of armor pop inward to make a hole a bit bigger than the diameter of the projectile. These chunks may initially be moving fairly quickly, but having broken out at relatively low force levels, they are probably barely warm. Thus their damage contribution is minimal. The projectile

itself, having lost little velocity, continues onward. If it richochets off the gun or a wall, it may lose all of its energy bouncing around tens or hundreds of times inside, but if it hits the second wall cleanly, it may break out another clean hole and exit. For a given incoming round, the odds are very much higher that bad armor will result in a penetration. The reason that the results of a good-armor penetration are so much more violent is that the armor died its own violent death trying to keep the projectile away from the crew. You’re much, much more likely to end up dead behind bad armor than behind good armor. The Tornio Mills manufactured good armour and in more than enough quantity to meet Patria’s needs.

The second major bottleneck was suitable engines. In the years leading up to World War II, as the need for armored vehicles was realized, designers in all countries were faced with the problem of how to power the vehicles, which weighed considerably more than the usual trucks that large vehicle engines were designed for. To solve this, they turned to using aircraft engines, which provided greater power-to-weight ratios and were more reliable than conventional inline vehicle engines available at the time. In this, the Finns chose to utilize the Finnish-manufactured Hispano-Suiza inline engines that were then being manufactured in increasing numbers.

For tank use the Hispano-Suiza had its supercharger, reduction gear, and other equipment removed from its camshaft, greatly simplifying its construction. It had cast, rather than forged, pistons, and was de-rated to around 600 bhp (447 kW), running on lower-octane petrol instead of high-octane aviation fuel. In addition, because weight saving was not so important for a tank engine, some of the Hispano-Suiza’s more expensive light-alloy components were replaced with cheaper, steel components in the “M39/M42″ version. It was also envisaged that the tank engine would use some components rejected on quality grounds for the Hispano-Suiza aircraft engine, i.e. Hispano-Suiza scrap. In use as a tank engine, the Hispano-Suiza engine was very lightly stressed and reliable, and substantially increased the power available. The first Hispano-Suiza prepared for tank use was tried in a modified M/38 Sotavaunut in September 1941 at Tornio and proved more than successful. Further helping avoid any bottleneck, the Hispano-Suiza engines were reserved for M/39’s and M/42’s to be delivered for Finnish use.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-04.jpg
Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi turrets in the Patria turret assembly building, Tornio

Those M/42’s destined for Sweden were shipped without engines, turrets or guns. A similar approach to the Tampella-Bofors 76mm main gun and the turrets ensured that adequate supplies were available for Patria. This in turn enabled the production line to be maintained at full speed from the date of inauguration of M/42 Valkoinensusi production in early 1942 through to the end of WW2. And afterwards for that matter, as orders were placed for the re-equipment of the Armies of Finland’s close allies, in particular Poland and the four small Baltic States.

Once in service, the M4/2 Valkoinensusi reliability would prove to have benefitted greatly from the detailed input into the requirements and design. Indeed, in tests against US-supplied Sherman tanks, Russian T-34’s from the tail-end of the Winter War and, later, on captured German Panther and Tiger tanks, “…the Valkoinensusi was faster than all the others, both across country and on the highway and could make sharper turns. It was also the better hill climber and could maneuver nicely over ground where the US and German tanks, and at times also the Russian tanks, would bog down…..” Advantage had also been taken of many features developed in the US in the 1930’s of which the Finns had become aware when working to procure arms and equipment over the course of the Winter War.

The first M/42 Valkoinensusi rolled of the Patria production line in early April 1942, with the 200th completed in mid-November of the same year. Production continued, with the Patria line working at full capacity as the Soviet Union fought on against the Germans, a battle which the Finns watched with something close to paranoia, fearing that one side or the other might attempt to drag them in. Ongoing attempts through this period to put in place a formal military alliance with Sweden were rebuffed, with the Swedish Government continuing to regard Finland’s domestic politics and “overtly and aggressively militaristic stance” with great suspicion. Finland’s public commitment to the cause of Estonia also caused the Swedish Government concern, as they wished to remain neutral and not be drawn into a war with either the USSR or Germany by the “unsteady and adventurous” Finns. Finland was now perhaps even more isolated than she had been at the time of the Winter War, although now the two totalitarian behomeths were warring on Finland’s very borders.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-05.jpg
Standard practice when moving the Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi cross-country in non-combat situations was to fully elevate the gun, or reverse the turret – here, reversed and locked down

By January 1943, on average approximately 25 M/42 Valkoinensusi’s per week were being produced and sufficient were on hand have completed the re-equipment of the 21st Panssaridivisoona. Unfortunately for the Finnish Army, Finland did require export income and Sweden would again apply pressure to the Finnish government to export weapons to Sweden. This caused a considerable debate within the Finnish government, particularly as Sweden’s defence spending and investiment in defence manufacturing infrastructure was nowhere near the level that Finland maintained, at great cost, throughout the years of WW2. Despite this, from April 1943 on, almost half the Valkoinensusi production was exported to Sweden, albeit without the turrets and guns, which were produced in Sweden (as they had been for the Swedish Army’s M/38 Sotavaunut’s).

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-08.jpg
Finnish Army M/42 Valkoinensusi’s in cover outside a Latvian village during the advance south down the Baltic, May 1944

This considerably slowed deliveries of the Valkoinensusi’s to the Finnish Army through 1943 and it was only by March 1944 that the 22nd Pansaaridivisoona found itself fully equipped at last with the Valkoinensusi. The 23rd had to make to with lend-lease Shermans supplied by the United States. A great deal of ill-feeling was generated by this Swedish demand, particularly as the hundreds of Valkoinensusi’s supplied to Sweden would never see battle. As one Finnish panssaari officer put it succinctly in mid 1944, shortly after the landings in Estonia, “the damned Swedes are protecting themselves yet again at the cost of the lives of Finnish soldiers.” This ill-feeling was somewhat offset by the full Division of Swedish volunteers who were now fighting within the Finnish Army.

After the Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi began to enter service in 1942, some further problems were identified. One was the length of the 76mm main gun barrel. Not unexpectedly, as with the Patria M/39 Panssarinhävittäjä, it was necessary for crews to be careful not to plough the gun barrel into the ground while traveling cross-country or in combat. A Finnish tank crewman later commented: “…the tank gun could easily dig into the ground in the smallest ditch. If you fired it after that, the barrel would open up at the end like the petals of a flower.” Standard practice when moving the M/42 Valkoinensusi cross-country in non-combat situations was to fully elevate the gun, or reverse the turret. On the other hand, none of the Valkoinensusi crews wished to trade off a lower velocity round for the convenience of a shorter barrel.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-09.jpg
Finnish Army M/42 Valkoinensusi moving south with accompanying infantry, Lithuania June 1944

During the winter and spring fighting of 1944–45, the M/42 Valkoinensusi demonstrated a marked advantage over both Russian and German tanks in its ability to move easily and rapidly over deep mud or snow without bogging down, leaving even the renowned T-34 in its wake. Finnish experience through the 1930’s with operating heavy logging equipment under similar conditions, and the resultant contribution to the M/42 Valkoinensusi design had paid off in spades. In terms of mobility, the Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi’s broad tracks, truly excellent suspension, low ground pressure and powerful engine gave it unparalleled cross-country performance while the tracks themselves were generally reliable and capable of running up high mileages before needing replacement. The powerful motor in proportion to overall weight resulted in a good turn of speed. Mechanically, the M/42 Valkoinensusi proved to be highly reliable; maintenance in the field was straightforward while the tank’s low profile was also a definite advantage in combat, as was the ability to depress the main gun, allowing the Valkoinensusi to “snipe” from cover.

Image
Sourced from: http://www.alternativefinland.com/wp-co ... usi-10.jpg
Finnish Army M/42 Valkoinensusi advancing into Poland, late summer 1944

In battle through 1944 and 1945, the M/42 Valkoinensusi generally proved superior to both the German tanks and, when called for (as happened on any number of occasions) Russian tanks. The Valkoinensusi was certainly far superior to the US-supplied Sherman’s; the American, British, Canadian and Polish armoured units fighting under overall Finnish Command on the Baltic Front over these years were generally envious of the superior Finnish tanks. This envy was no doubt further enhanced when the Finnish Army introduced its new High-Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP) ammunition in May 1944 for the 76 mm gun, just in time for E-Day and the invasion of Estonia. The projectile contained a tungsten core penetrator surrounded by a lightweight aluminum body, which gave it a higher velocity and more penetrating power. The higher-velocity 76 mm gun and the HVAP round combination would give the Patria M/42 Valkoinensusi anti-tank firepower that would be superior to most of the German tanks they encountered through the remainder of WW2.

Agile enough for fast tactical relocation, reasonably armored and with excellent firepower, the M/42 Valkoinensusi has long been considered as contendor for one of the best tanks of the WW2 years, a remarkable feat considering its origins in the mid-1930’s.

Pioneeri Variant

On March 29th of 1943, it was decided to produce a recovery version of the Valkoinensusi for use in the Panssaaridivisoona. In June of 1943, Patria produced the first 20 of a prototype series Pioneeri-Valkoinensusi which were turretless and heavily modified for engineering and recovery tasks. Production started on a small scale, mixed in with the main production run, from July of 1943. Production was intermittent with batches intermingled with the Valkoinensusi runs and various modifications were made during the production. Early versions were armed with a 20mm Lahti cannon and later on with twin 7.92mm machineguns as well.

The Pioneeri-Valkoinensusi was operated by a crew made up of a commander, a driver and a mechanic. It was fitted with a 1.5 ton lifting crane and other recovery/repair equipment (eg. a large shovel, a 40 ton winch, etc.), some of it specially designed. Overall, 97 were produced from June of 1943 through to March of 1945 and were spread across all 3 Finnish Panssaridivisoona, a part of the significant investment in tank recovery and repair units that the Finnish Army made – that paid off with disabled vehicles being repaired and returned to service more often than not. The Pioneeri-Valkoinensusi proved one of the best recovery vehicles of World War II and remained in use through to the mid 1950’s. Post WW2, numbers were manufactured and exported to the armed forces of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, East Prussia, North Germany and the Czech Republic.

The Patria Valkoinensusi – a brief post-WW2 history

While not directly relevant, I’ve included this as a post-script on the life of this historic tank, which, when it finally went out of production at the tail-end of the 1960’s, would close the book on a pedigree that went back to the early 1930’s and almost the first post-WW1 tanks.

Post WW2, the Valkoinensusi-I would continue to form the mainstay of the Finnish Army’s armoured units through the 1940’s and well into the 1950’s. An upgraded version with a 105mm gun, additional armour and a more powerful engine, the Patria M/52 Valkoinensusi-II, was manufactured and used by the Finnish Army as well as by the Polish Army and the Army’s of the four small Baltic States. Following the establishment of the Czech Republic in 1945, Škoda Works would be re-established and would soon go on to produce the Valkoinensusi-II for the Czech Army. Škoda Works and Patria would jointly export the upgraded Valkoinensusi-II (and the later Valkoinensusi-III) to Sweden, Norway, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, East Prussia and later on, to the armed forces of Northern Germany, Denmark, Israel and Spain as well as to some South American countries in small numbers.

Over the course of the 1950’s, Spain received a total of 389 M/52 Valkoinensusi-II’s financed by US Military Aid, which incidentally also funded the acquisition of the M/52 Valkoinensusi-II’s by Poland, North Germany and the four small Baltic States as part of the ongoing Cold War between the US and the USSR. In addition, both Finland and Škoda Works sold arms and tanks to Israel in the years after WW2. Even prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, as the Haganah searched for weapons, its agents would establish ties with Finland’s Osasto Karhu, a department of the Etsivä Keskuspoliisi and it’s secretive and ruthless head, Esko Riekki. Working as he did directly for the President of Finland until his retirement in 1958, it can only be surmised that these sales had Presidential approval, although it must be said that Riekki was not noted for his deference to authority, even when serving under Mannerheim during the war years, nor was he noted for leaving paper trails.

While little or no documentation exists, circumstantial evidence does point to Riekki being instrumental in arranging the sale of 10 of the surviving Finnish Army Hotchkiss H35 tanks, together with a further 15 Renault R35’s and an indeterminate number of Sherman’s (of which the Finn’s possessed large stockpiles, many of them damaged but repairable; these Shermans were sold to Israel by the ton as “scrap metal”, hence the lack of specific numbers). Also sold to Israel as “scrap metal” were large numbers of WW2-era Soviet and German rifles, machineguns, artillery, tanks (including a number of T-34’s which the Finns “just happened to have lying around”) and assorted ammunition for which the Finnish Army had no need. While these were the only direct Finnish arms sales to Israel at this time, they were large in volume and came at a time when the Israeli armed forces needed every weapon they could lay their hands on.

Indirectly, the Israeli’s would go on to acquire large numbers of the M/52 Valkoinensusi-II’s from Škoda Works in the late 1950’s. As tensions had mounted with Eqypt through the early 1950’s, Israel had made an application (which was refused) to the US in 1955 to purchase 60 M47 tanks (and applied again in 1958, this time to purchase 100 M47 tanks but the answer was again the same). Škoda Works had by this time fulfilled all extent orders for the Valkoinensusi-II’s and, looking to keep the production line going, was in search of orders. An approach by the Israeli’s met with a positive response, the Czech government raised no objections (and indeed, facilitated the order in every way possible). The end result was that an immediate order for 230 M/52 Valkoinensusi-II’s was closed, with an initial shipment of 100 taken from the Czech Army’s reserves (to be replaced with new tanks).

Thus, at the time of the Suez Crisis in 1956, the main IDF tanks were the French-supplied AMX-13, the M/52 Valkoinensusi-II’s and WW2-era US tanks. And finally, in the early 1960’s, Israel signed a deal with Škoda Works for the purchase of 150 M/60 Valkoinensusi-III tanks. A further 120 were ordered in 1966 and delivered over the next two years. The Valkoinensusi-III incorporated a number of modifications including a new 553hp gas turbine engine, a Tampella-Skoda 105mm L/60 main gun with an autoloader allowing a rate of fire of 15 rounds/minute and a crew of 3 (driver, gunner, commander). There was also provision for an extra crew member, a rear driver/radio operator, who faced the rear of the tank equipped with a complete setup for driving. This allowed the tank to be driven backwards at the same speed as forwards, keeping its frontal armour pointed at the enemy.

The Patria and Škoda Works partnership would sell Valkoinensusi-II and III’s in small numbers elsewhere but by the early 1970’s, the cost of developing a new Main Battle Tank far exceeded the financing available to either Patria or Škoda Works and, without government backing or guaranteed orders in large volume, both companies withdrew from the MBT market, bringing the end to an era.

Reference and thanks: a special mention of http://www.ointres.se/strv_74.htm for many of the photos re-used.
ex Ngāti Tumatauenga ("Tribe of the Maori War God") aka the New Zealand Army

User avatar
Fliegende Untertasse
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: 23 Oct 2005, 21:07
Location: Häme

Re: What If-Finland had been prepared for the Winter War?

#675

Post by Fliegende Untertasse » 14 Nov 2014, 18:01

Just a spelling note
Valkoinensusi = awolfthatiswhite
White wolf = Valkosusi

Post Reply

Return to “Winter War & Continuation War”